Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Aging
Date Submitted: Dec 7, 2023
Open Peer Review Period: Dec 18, 2023 - Feb 12, 2024
Date Accepted: Jun 28, 2024
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Adoption of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Robots in Long-Term Care Homes by Healthcare Providers: A Scoping Review Guided by a Person-Centred Care Practice Framework
ABSTRACT
Background:
Long-term care (LTC) homes face the challenges of increasing care needs of residents and a shortage of healthcare providers. Literature suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) enabled robots may solve such challenges and support person-centred care. Scant literature is from the perspectives of healthcare providers, even though their perspectives are crucial to implementing AI-enabled robots. This scoping review aims to explore this scant body of literature to answer two questions: (a) What barriers do healthcare providers perceive in adopting AI-enabled robots in LTC homes? and (b) What practical strategies can be taken to overcome these barriers and facilitate the adoption of AI-enabled robots in LTC homes?
Objective:
This scoping review aims to explore this scant body of literature to answer two questions: (a) What barriers do healthcare providers perceive in adopting AI-enabled robots in LTC homes? and (b) What practical strategies can be taken to overcome these barriers and facilitate the adoption of AI-enabled robots in LTC homes?
Methods:
We adopted the Person-Centred Practice Framework (PCPF) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as the primary and supplementary theoretical frameworks to guide our analysis of findings. We are a team consisting of three researchers, two healthcare providers, two research trainees, and a family partner with diverse disciplines in nursing, social work, engineering, and medicine. Referring to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, our team searched the databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Google) for peer-reviewed and gray literature.
Results:
This review includes 35 articles that met the inclusion criteria. We identified three barriers to AI-enabled robot adoption: 1) Perceived technical complexity and limitation, 2) Negative impact, doubted usefulness, and ethical concerns, and 3) Resource limitations. Strategies to mitigate these barriers were also explored: a) Accommodate various needs of residents and healthcare providers, b) Increase understanding of the benefits of using robots and reassure robots can never replace humans, c) Overcome the safety issues, and d) boost interest in the use of robots and provide training.
Conclusions:
Our findings closely align with three domains of the PCPF: Professionally Competent, Potential for Innovation and Risk-Taking, and Supportive Organizational Systems. The PCPF offers a useful heuristic to guide our analysis of practice innovation. To address limitations in the PCPF, we also integrated elements from the CFIR into PCPF, which provided more constructs when we considered the resource barriers. Our results underscore the necessity of including the voices of healthcare providers and other stakeholders in the research development and implementation phases for AI-enabled robots. Future research should extend this conversation by exploring diverse stakeholder perspectives.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.