Table 2.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation discussed in the included papers.

Factors				References of the papers
Barriers
	Organizational
		Noisy environment during interaction	[16,18,48]
		Storage area necessary	[46]
		Charging necessary	[46]
		Hygiene measures necessary	[46]
		Staff/caregivers resistant to implementation	[18,66]
		Increased workload for staff/caregivers	[8,66]
		Frequency of sessions not adapted to patients’ needs	[61]
	Clinical
		Participants with an advanced cognitive decline	[18-20,54,66]
		Participants with a hearing impairment	[20,63]
		Difficult disengagement after the robot’s removal	[55]
		Risk of deception	[49,51,66]
		Participants with a language impairment	[50]
		Interaction with the robot seemed infantilizing	[8,51]
		Participants feared the robot	[22]
		Participants misunderstood the purposes of the study	[8]
		Frustrating interruption of activities	[57]
	Technical
		Robot was difficult to understand	[16,21,63]
		Robot’s touchscreen was difficult to use	[16,48]
		Robot’s voice recognition system was deficient	[18,48]
		Limited visibility of the robot’s screen display	[21]
		Robot’s speech rhythm deficient (too fast, long pauses, etc)	[21,62,63]
		Robot was too noisy	[8,56,61]
		Connection between devices was unstable	[8]
		Robot was fragile	[8]
		Robot was heavy	[8,61]
		Robot was too big	[8]
		Robot interrupted conversations	[63]
		Robot spoke a limited number of languages	[19,48]
Facilitators
	Organizational
		Staff/caregivers had a positive perception of the robot	[18,46,66]
		Staff/caregivers received training	[8,9,16,22,46,49,51-55,57,60,64-66]
		Staff/caregivers promoted the use of the robot	[46,66]
		Robot was easily available	[10,47]
		Low cost	[10,19,47]
		Robot was named by participants	[55]
		Demonstration at the beginning of the intervention	[21,53,56]
		Intervention did not replace usual activities	[49]
		Hygiene measures were easily applicable	[51]
		Participants were given ownership of their robot	[10]
		Cleaning protocol was developed	[66]
		Sessions were carried out in a quiet separate room	[8,53,54,56]
		Exclusion of patients uninterested by the robot	[53,54]
		Activities with the robot were organized (eg, bingo, listening to music)	[53]
		Verbal/written instructions for staff/caregivers	[53,56]
		Length of sessions were flexible	[16,56]
		Facilitator was present during sessions	[8,49,56,62,63]
	Technical
		Robot’s appearance was pleasing	[10,16,18,21,22,47,51,61]
		Addition of stylus pen to facilitate the use of the robot’s touchscreen	[16,48]
		Robot was easy to use, little training required	[21,47]
		Robot was responsive to patients’ touch	[9,47,66]
		Robot’s speech modalities were adequate	[61,66]
		Robot was voice- and face-activated	[21]
		Robot’s sound was clear	[10,21,22,62]
		Robot’s voice/face recognition feature was adequate	[21]
		Contextual interaction (intervention within augmented reality display)	[49]
		Robot had entertaining features (apps, images, music)	[16,18,21,48,63]