Adoption of Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Robots in Long-Term Care Homes by Health Care Providers: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term care (LTC) homes face the challenges of increasing care needs of residents and a shortage of health care providers. Literature suggests that artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled robots may solve such challenges and support person-centered care. There is a dearth of literature exploring the perspectives of health care providers, which are crucial to implementing AI-enabled robots. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to explore this scant body of literature to answer two questions: (1) what barriers do health care providers perceive in adopting AI-enabled robots in LTC homes? (2) What strategies can be taken to overcome these barriers to the adoption of AI-enabled robots in LTC homes? METHODS: We are a team consisting of 3 researchers, 2 health care providers, 2 research trainees, and 1 older adult partner with diverse disciplines in nursing, social work, engineering, and medicine. Referring to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, our team searched databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Google Scholar) for peer-reviewed and gray literature, screened the literature, and extracted the data. We analyzed the data as a team. We compared our findings with the Person-Centered Practice Framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to further our understanding of the findings. RESULTS: This review includes 33 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: (1) accommodate the various needs of residents and health care providers, (2) increase the understanding of the benefits of using robots, (3) review and overcome the safety issues, and (4) boost interest in the use of robots and provide training. CONCLUSIONS: Previous literature suggested using AI-enabled robots to resolve the challenges of increasing care needs and staff shortages in LTC. Yet, our findings show that health care providers might not use robots because of different considerations. The implication is that the voices of health care providers need to be included in using robots. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075278.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".