Best Practice Guidance
Human Interaction with Technology in Dementia

Guidance

See recommendation no. 3.2.5.1

Guidance

The academic community should dedicate more resources to develop and evaluate technology-driven solutions that support dyadic communication and foster social interactions in dementia caregiving dyads. Rigorous investigation is needed using standard, comparable measurements to demonstrate the effects of these technological solutions.

Explanation and examples

A systematic literature search was conducted to comprehensively describe technology-driven interventions to prompt communication and facilitate positive social interactions between people with dementia and their conversation partners. Titles and abstracts from three databases PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO, were independently screened by two researchers. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Of the 18 papers included in the review, the technology most commonly used to facilitate social interaction were tablet-computers (n=7), social robots (n=5), and personal computers (n=4). Technology-driven devices not fitting into the three other categories were labelled as ‘other’ (n = 2). Results showed that the social technology helped: i) breaking the ice by initiating dialogue and serving as a conversational platform; ii) increase interaction frequency and duration by encouraging more involvement between the conversation partners; iii) better understand the person with dementia through reminiscence activities; and iv) reduce pressure on the conversation partner by making the communication more reciprocal. Although there is seemingly great potential in technology to facilitate social interaction and communication in dementia caregiving, the findings show that research in this area is still in an explorative phase. The diversity in study methodologies and few standardised instruments used to measure these outcomes point to a need for further research into development and validation of new assessment tools for positive outcomes in social health.

Guidance

Make clear how you define the outcome of social participation and assess different dimensions of this multidimensional concept when evaluating the effects of social technology on social participation.

Explanation and examples

A systematic review was conducted to gain insight into the effects of technological interventions on the social participation of older adults. A total of 36 studies was included in a narrative synthesis. A major finding was the inconsistent use of terms and concepts related to social participation among studies. Future studies should make the applied definition of social participation explicit to allow for comparison of research results.

Furthermore, a majority of the included studies measured one specific dimension of social participation, i.e: social connections (e.g. by measuring loneliness or social isolation). However, social participation is a multidimensional concept. It is not only about social connections, but also about being engaged in meaningful activities that provide social interaction with others in the community (Levasseur et al., 2010). So far, there is no outcome measure that covers all dimensions of social participation. Therefore, it is recommended to combine quantitative outcome measures with qualitative data collection methods when assessing the effect(s) of technology on social participation. In the future, research should focus on developing and validating an outcome measure that covers different dimensions of social participation.

Guidance

Low-cost pet robots are a promising technology to improve the psychosocial health of people living with dementia. More high quality studies with sufficiently large sample sizes should be conducted to properly investigate their impacts.

Explanation and examples

Pet robots are a technology-based substitute to animal assisted therapy. However, the high costs of many pet robots can hinder the use of pet robots in dementia care. A scoping review was conducted to understand the impact of using lower-cost (more affordable) pet robots. Synthesised findings from nine studies suggested that low-cost pet robots improved the communication, social interactions and other health domains of older adults and people living with dementia. However, most studies had a small sample size and were of varying quality. Moving forward, more rigorous studies are necessary to investigate their impacts.

Guidance

Low-cost pet robots demonstrate the potential to positively impact the psychosocial health of people with dementia and their caregivers. Due to their lower cost, they may be more accessible and affordable and should therefore be considered for use in dementia care.

Explanation and examples

Although pet robots have demonstrated positive impacts on the wellbeing of people with dementia, their affordability can impede their uptake in dementia care. A scoping review, content analysis of consumer reviews and a qualitative study showed that the impacts of low-cost pet robots on people with dementia resembled the effects of other higher costed (but more advanced) pet robots. These included improved mood, companionship, increased activity engagement and reduced anxiety. Caregivers also experienced knock-on effects, such as feelings of joy and relief. Low-cost pet robots are more widely accessible to the public since they can be purchased off-the-shelf. While promising, findings of their positive impacts are subject to bias. More rigorous studies are necessary to confirm their impacts.