Table 2.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Author, year | Country of study | Publication type | Study type | Study duration | Study population | Type of healthcare setting | Telepresence robot name | Facilitators | Barriers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaltonen et al., 2017 22 | Finland | Conference paper | Qualitative study | 10 weeks | A female resident; her two daughters; nurses | Assisted living | Double | • Sense of presence | • Resident preferred telephone due to hearing issues |
| • Remote participation in activities | • Insufficient control for resident | ||||||||
| • Adaptable level of control | • Lack of accessibility | ||||||||
| • Informing other residents and visitors about the video functions of the robot | • Audio problems | ||||||||
| • Scheduling calls | • Privacy and security concerns | ||||||||
| • Clear guidelines | • Incompatible care setting regulations | ||||||||
| • Potential overuse | |||||||||
| • Potential misuse | |||||||||
| • Poor internet connection | |||||||||
| Koceski & Koceska, 2016 10 | Macedonia, Europe | Peer-reviewed journal article | Evaluation study | One month | n = 35 (30 elderly participants with no severe disability problems (e.g., severe dementia and bedridden); five professional caregivers in the nursing home) | LTC | A developed assistive telepresence robot | • Personalized functions | • Lack of training |
| • Easy to use | |||||||||
| • The possibility of companionship will be enhanced by telepresence robot | |||||||||
| • Resident’s ability to operate robot | |||||||||
| • Engagement of multidisciplinary team | |||||||||
| Koceska et al., 2019 28 | Macedonia, Europe | Peer-reviewed journal article | Evaluation study | Unknown | n = 31 (26 elderly people; five professional caregivers) | LTC | A developed assistive telepresence robot | • Adaptable level of control | No reported barriers |
| • Low-cost design | |||||||||
| • Sufficient training | |||||||||
| • Residents not concerned with privacy | |||||||||
| • Practice sessions | |||||||||
| Korblet, 2019 11 | The Netherlands | Master’s thesis | Qualitative exploratory study | 15 minutes demonstration per group; 20–30 minutes interviews per group; total duration about 3 hours | n = 11 (three groups of participants over the age of 70 (1) five with dementia (2) three who lived independently but visited the nursing home one to 2 days a week (3) three with physical disabilities) | LTC | Double | • Sense of presence | • Resident preferred telephone due to hearing issues |
| • Easy to use | |||||||||
| • Low-cost design | |||||||||
| • Sufficient training | • Negative attitude | ||||||||
| • Residents not concerned with privacy | |||||||||
| • Residents trusted the robot | |||||||||
| • Positive attitude | • Feelings of doubt towards ability to learn | ||||||||
| • Use robot with trusted individual | |||||||||
| • Training and knowledge | |||||||||
| Moyle et al., 2013 30 | Brisbane, Australia | Conference paper | Case study design | Unknown | Five research triads: Each included a resident with dementia living in a long-term care home; a family member; and up to two members of the care staff team | LTC | Giraff | • Sufficient training | • Poor internet connection |
| • Software and hardware problems | |||||||||
| • Negative attitude | |||||||||
| • Lack of training | |||||||||
| Moyle et al., 2014 27 | Queensland, Australia | Peer-reviewed journal article | Mixed-methods study | Four months, with each trial over six to eight weeks | n=18 (five residents with mild-to-moderate dementia; six family members; seven staff members) | LTC | Giraff | • Promoted socialization | • Software and hardware problems |
| • No need for person with dementia to learn how to use | • Audio problems | ||||||||
| • Adaptable level of control | • Low quality camera | ||||||||
| • Importance of cost-effectiveness analysis | |||||||||
| • Potential uses other than social connection, for example, to inform family of the resident’s condition by staff | • Expensive | ||||||||
| • Sufficient training | |||||||||
| • Residents not concerned with appearance | • Privacy and security concerns | ||||||||
| • Positive attitude | |||||||||
| • Scheduling calls | • Poor internet connection | ||||||||
| • High level of resident engagement during calls | |||||||||
| Moyle et al., 2014 21 | Queensland, Australia | Peer-reviewed journal article | Descriptive qualitative study | Five to seven weeks per trial, number of trials not mentioned | n=11 (five residents with mild-to-moderate dementia; six family members) | LTC | Giraff and VGo | • Sense of presence | • Lack of research for residents with moderate and severe dementia in care settings |
| • Promoted socialization | • Software and hardware problems | ||||||||
| • Mobility | • Computer incompatibility | ||||||||
| • No need for person with dementia to learn how to use | • Audio problems | ||||||||
| • Easy to use | • Limited mobility | ||||||||
| • Previous experience with similar technology | • Poor internet connection | ||||||||
| • Not viewed as a technology to be used across the trajectory of dementia | |||||||||
| • Not appropriate for residents with cognitive impairment | |||||||||
| • Longer time for resident to feel comfortable with robot | |||||||||
| Moyle et al., 2020 26 | Finland | Conference paper | Empirical study | 12 weeks | n=6 (A 83-year-old female resident with no diagnosed memory illness; two daughters of the resident; three nurses) | Assisted living | Double | • Visualizing caller’s face | • Insufficient control for resident |
| • Promoted socialization | • Disruptive to care work | ||||||||
| • Alleviated loneliness | • Audio problems | ||||||||
| • Reduced travel time | • Low quality camera | ||||||||
| • Adaptable level of control | • Privacy and security concerns | ||||||||
| • Easy to use | • Concerns for other residents | ||||||||
| • Positive attitude | • Poor internet connection | ||||||||
| • Ability to increase family member’s role in the care setting | • Lack of training | ||||||||
| • Ethics plan, especially about privacy and control | • Staff felt unskilled | ||||||||
| Niemelä et al., 2017 24 | Finland | Peer-reviewed journal article | Empirical study | Three trials, each ranged from five to 12 weeks | In each trial, there were a resident, one or more of her/his family members, the personal nurse of the resident, and other care workers at the ward | Assisted living | Double | • Sense of presence | • Insufficient control for resident |
| • Lack of connection indicator | |||||||||
| •Visualizing caller’s face | • Audio problems | ||||||||
| • Remote participation in activities | • Privacy and security concerns | ||||||||
| • Engaged family members in care | • Preferred to keep robot in room | ||||||||
| • Easy to use | • Concerns for other residents | ||||||||
| • Residents not concerned with privacy | • Unclear family and care worker limitations | ||||||||
| • Ability to increase family member’s role in assisted living | • Poor internet connection | ||||||||
| • Scheduling calls | • Limited use | ||||||||
| • Clear guidelines | • Concern about family’s perspective if call is rejected | ||||||||
| • Need for permission from all residents | |||||||||
| Niemelä et al., 2019 23 | Finland | A chapter in a book | Empirical study | Three trials, each ranged from five to 12 weeks | Three elderly residents, their family members and three care workers at the first setting and five care workers and a manager at the second setting | Assisted living | Double | • Sense of presence | • Poor ergonomics |
| • Mobility | • Privacy and security concerns | ||||||||
| • Adaptable level of control | • Concerns for other residents | ||||||||
| • Personalized functions | • Concern for decreased in person visits | ||||||||
| • Sufficient training | |||||||||
| • Clear guidelines | |||||||||
| • Reflecting on future use of robots | |||||||||
| Robinson et al., 2013 29 | Auckland, New Zealand | Peer-reviewed journal article | Cross-sectional study | Over one week | n = 26 (10 residents over 71 years old with dementia; 11 family members; five staff members) | LTC | Guide | • Personalized functions | • Too complicated |
| • Large size | |||||||||
| • Poor ergonomics | |||||||||
| • Difficult to see screen | |||||||||
| • Not appropriate for residents with cognitive impairment | |||||||||
| Reis et al., 2018 31 | Portugal | Conference paper | Proposed roadmap | Unknown | Elderly; family members; care centres' staff | LTC | Proposed to use beam, PadBot2 and Double2 | • Suitable setting | • Lack of guidelines |
| • Good internet connection | • Lack of planning | ||||||||
| • Sufficient training | |||||||||
| • Engagement of multidisciplinary team | |||||||||
| • Establishing an evaluation plan | |||||||||
| Vermeersch et al., 2015 25 | South central Ohio, USA | Peer-reviewed journal article | Descriptive exploratory study | Two weeks | n = 14 (13 residents over age 65; one advanced practice registered nurses) | Clinic | RP-7 robot | • Sense of presence | • Software and hardware problems |
| • Importance of cost-effectiveness analysis | • Appearance | ||||||||
| • Operations improved with practice | • Expensive |