Best Practice Guidance
Human Interaction with Technology in Dementia

Guidance

Technology developers should be aware that the challenge of using everyday information communication technologies can be high for older adults, including some people with dementia. They should use inclusive design that addresses cognitive useability to reduce the level of challenge so that more people with cognitive impairments can use ICTs.

Explanation and Examples

A standardized questionnaire investigated how 35 people living with dementia and 34 people with no known cognitive impairment in Sweden perceived their ability to use 90 ETs on a 5 step rating scale. This data was analysed (in a Rasch model) to produce a challenge measure for each of the 31 EICTs, showing how difficult or easy they were to use. Landline telephone was the easiest EICT to use. Scores for smartphone functions (make calls, receive calls, alarm, camera) were at the easier end of the challenge hierarchy and comparable to (or lower than) the challenge of the same functions on a push button mobile phone. These smartphone functions were less relevant to the group of people with dementia than the group without. Using a computer for the full range of functions (shopping, banking, email etc.) scored in the top half of the challenge of the hierarchy and using a tablet to search the web was most difficult. No other tablet functions (i.e. banking, email) could be scored since not enough people considered those functions relevant. Several smartphone functions (i.e. game, social media, transaction) could not be scored for the same reason

Guidance

Technological interventions aiming to promote social participation among older adults (with and without dementia) should incorporate a social interaction element.

Explanation and Examples

The number of people with dementia who live in the community and are socially isolated is growing. Social isolation can negatively affect health and well-being. Therefore, psychosocial interventions are needed to promote the social participation of people with dementia living in the community. A systematic literature review was conducted to explore the effects of technological interventions on the social participation of older adults with and without dementia. Findings from 36 studies suggest that technological interventions that include a social interaction element (e.g. face-to-face contact, phone calls, text messages) are successful in promoting social participation among older adults. Examples are group interventions that provide regular interactions within a group, or interventions that enable to connect and communicate with other people (e.g. family, friends, or other older adults).

Guidance

The design of some existing pet robots for people with dementia do not sufficiently consider their preferences. For example, while some pet robots are designed to resemble unfamiliar animals such as a dinosaur or seal, people with dementia seem to prefer more familiarly designed pets, such as domestic animals like cats and dogs. As little research has been done into pet robot design preferences of people with dementia further investigation is needed.

Explanation and Examples

One of the most researched and used pet robots in dementia care is PARO, a robotic baby harp seal. The developer of PARO anticipated that users are likely to be more accepting of PARO, since they are less likely to have experiences and expectations of a seal. However, Bradwell and colleagues found that older adults including people with dementia have expressed a preference for familiar animals such as cats and dogs. A qualitative study uncovered similar findings – Care providers in nursing homes expressed that residents with dementia may prefer and react better to familiar animals. In line with a person-centred approach to care, the use of pet robots should account for the preferences and needs of people with dementia. However, there is a lack of studies that have explicitly investigated such design preferences. More studies are necessary to bridge this gap.

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.

Guidance

Technology developers and researchers should be aware of the different contextual factors that can affect the translation of research on social robots to real-world use.

Explanation and examples

Barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of social robots can occur at different levels. For example, they relate to the social robots’ features, or relate to organisational factors or external policies. A scoping review was conducted to understand the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of social robots for older adults and people living with dementia. 53 studies were included in this review. Most existing studies have disproportionately focused on understanding barriers and facilitators relating to the social robots, such as their ease of use. However, there is significantly less research that has been conducted to understand organisational factors or wider contextual factors that can affect their implementation in real-world practice. Future research should pay more attention to investigating the contextual factors, using an implementation framework, to identify barriers and facilitators on different levels to guide the further implementation of social robots.

Guidance

To minimise potential distress and negative impacts from using pet robots, researchers and care providers should assess their suitability for individuals with dementia, and facilitate their use based on each individual’s preference, needs and abilities. As the needs of people with dementia can fluctuate, care providers should also monitor and re-evaluate the use of pet robots.

Explanation and examples

Findings from a scoping review of eight studies showed that some people with dementia did not respond to pet robots. Some had negative responses such as agitation, or became jealous when the robot was shared with other residents in care facilities. An analysis of 1,327 consumer reviews on a low-cost robotic cat showed similar findings. Likewise, interviews with care providers from nursing homes revealed that they had similar experiences. To minimise the risks of potential negative impacts, the use of pet robots for each individual has to be carefully considered. This should encompass:

• Assessment

  Assess the individual’s preferences, needs, functional abilities and needs (e.g. occupational needs, and physical, cognitive, and sensory abilities). If used in a care setting, consider discussing the use of pet robots with family members.

• Facilitation and Tailoring

  Based on the assessment, provide facilitation or tailored support to individuals. For example, if the individual has difficulties initiating interactions with the pet robot, consider providing assistance

• Monitoring & Evaluating

  Monitor and evaluate the individual’s reaction to pet robots, and intervene if the individual shows signs of distress. These observations should be shared with and discussed with other care providers if used in care facilities

Guidance

Residents with dementia and their family members should be involved when planning to introduce pet robots in long-term care settings and when using pet robots.

Explanation and examples

In a consensus-building exercise involving 56 international experts (care professionals, organisational leaders and researchers), experts established the importance of including residents with dementia and their family in the implementation of pet robots in long-term care facilities. When planning to adopt pet robots in long-term care facilities, the opinions of residents with dementia and their family members must be sought. Examples include

• Seeking their opinions on which pet robot to purchase by showing them different pet robots, and asking or observing their reactions to each robot
• Seeking feedback on their preferred ways of using robots, such as whether they prefer the robots to be individualised or shared with other residents.

When using pet robots, residents with dementia and their family members must be supported to be actively involved. For example:

• Residents may be involved in “taking care” of robots.
• Family members could provide support or use the robots as topics of conversations during visits.

Guidance

Before introducing pet robots in a long-term care facility, consensus discussions among stakeholders, such as care professionals and managers, should be conducted, to discuss whether (and why) pet robots should or should not be introduced for residents with dementia. In addition, the facility’s readiness to introduce pet robots should be carefully considered.

Explanation and examples

In a modified Delphi study involving 56 international experts (care professionals, organisational leaders and researchers), experts agreed that these strategies are critical to support the implementation of pet robots in long-term care facilities. Consensus discussions should involve all care providers who may be directly or indirectly involved in the care of residents with dementia. Examples of discussions may include:

• The importance of bringing in/using pet robots to address a chosen problem (e.g. to address residents’ needs or support care staff in their delivery of care for residents with dementia)
• Appropriateness of using pet robots to address the problem(s), such as whether they align with workflows.

In addition, the organisation’s readiness to implement pet robots should also be assessed. Examples include:

• Assessment of financial resources
• Assessment of manpower and logistical resources (e.g. sufficient space and charging point).

Guidance

Care staff should be educated about the use of pet robots in dementia care through educational meetings that are tailored to the needs of different staff. In addition, they should be provided with ongoing trainings to support them in applying this knowledge as part of their delivery of dementia care.

Explanation and examples

In a modified Delphi study involving 56 international experts (care professionals, organisational leaders and researchers), educational meetings and ongoing trainings are identified as critical strategies to support the implementation of pet robots in long-term care facilities. The purpose of conducting educational meetings is to provide care staff with overall knowledge on the role of pet robots for dementia care. Such sessions should be tailored to the different needs of each care professional. Examples of content may include:

• Evidence supporting the use of pet robots in dementia care, such as information about their impacts on residents, who may benefit and who may be at risk of distress
• How pet robots can support caregiving

While the purpose of education is to provide overall knowledge about pet robots, the purpose of conducting ongoing training is to support care professionals to acquire practical skills and confidence to use pet robots in dementia care giving. Examples include:

• On-the-job training
• Structured supervision
• Training based on each staff experiences/knowledge.

Guidance

The cost of pet robots can prohibit their uptake in long-term care facilities for dementia care. There may also be additional costs involved in implementing pet robots, such as manpower and time related costs. Different funding sources need to be considered to acquire sufficient funding to support the implementation effort.

Explanation and examples

In a qualitative study involving 22 care providers from nursing homes, the cost of purchasing pet robots have been reported as a concern. Some care providers reported the use of charity funds to support the purchase of pet robots. In a modified Delphi study, experts (care professionals, organisational leaders and researchers) established that it is necessary to creatively seek and acquire funding to support the implementation of pet robots in long-term care facilities. Examples of potential funding sources may include:

• Existing funding resources
• Raising private funds (such as donations or charity)
• Shifting or (re)prioritising the use of funds within the organisation based on their impact on people with dementia

The funds may be used to support different aspects of implementation. Examples include:

• Fund the introduction and adoption of pet robots
• Support other time limited actions needed for initial implementation, such as purchasing cleaning materials
• Training (e.g. developing educational materials)