Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39283666›Full record

SynthesisJMIR aging2024

Nursing Staff's Perspectives of Care Robots for Assisted Living Facilities: Systematic Literature Review.

Katie Trainum, Jiaying Liu, Elliott Hauser, Bo Xie

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Katie TrainumSchool of Nursing, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0996-1006
Jiaying LiuSchool of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5398-1485
Elliott HauserSchool of Information, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2547-0952
Bo XieSchool of Nursing, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6016-6008

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare robots have been proposed in response to nursing shortages in assisted living facilities (ALFs) and the growing population of older adults. While the use of care robots may improve the general health and well-being of older adults, their introduction changes the work of nursing staff fundamentally, and it has implications for the entire health care system. In developing such technology, it is important to include end users, but so far, the nursing staff's perspectives have largely been ignored.

objectiveThis study aims to examine the literature on nursing staff's attitudes, needs, and preferences related to the use of care robots in ALFs, in order to discover gaps in the literature and guide future research.

methodsThis review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 protocol. On May 12, 2023, we searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, the IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and the ACM Digital Library using predetermined search terms. Included publications, written in English, focused on the predevelopment phase, in which information was gathered on nursing staff's attitudes, needs, and preferences regarding care robots for ALFs. Publications were excluded if they did not provide peer-reviewed empirical data. The studies' findings were summarized, coded, and analyzed into major themes using thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. Their quality was assessed using McGill University's Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tools.

resultsThe final sample included 15 studies. Most of the studies (n=11, 73%) were rated as good quality; however, there was a general lack of reporting on important methodological decisions and sample characteristics. Nursing staff desired care robots that could assist with physically demanding tasks and reduce their workload but had mixed feelings on whether robots could or should assist with social tasks. In addition, nursing staff are concerned about the ethics of care robots, as well as about their safety, accessibility, and operability. The nursing staff's culture, qualification, and role in the facility may influence their perspectives of care robots. The studies lacked theory-driven designs and large sample sizes. Eight (53%) studies mentioned using a participatory design approach, but a lack of established criteria for what constitutes participatory design leads to varying degrees of methodological quality.

conclusionsThere was consensus among nursing staff that care robots should serve as nursing assistants to reduce workload. Whether robots could or should assist with social tasks remains a question. Further research is needed to mitigate nursing staff's concerns and understand the socioecological factors that influence their perspectives of care robots and their adoption in ALFs. In addition, theory-driven and large sample size study designs are necessary, as well as work to develop clear criteria for related participatory design research.

Indexed as

Assisted Living FacilitiesAttitude of Health PersonnelNursing StaffRoboticsHumansagingattitudeselderlyexperiencesgeriatricsgerontologylong-term careneedsnursesnursingnursing homenursing staffolder adultsolder peopleopinionsparticipatory designperceptionsperspectivespreferencepreferencesretirementreview methodologyreview methodsrobotssearchessearchingsenior livingsynthesessystematicsystematic reviewuser needs

Identifiers

PMID39283666
PMCPMC11443223

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.