Facilitators and barriers to codesigning social robots with older adults living with dementia: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Social robots are increasingly used to support older adults living with dementia by providing not only reminders and companionship but also emotional support, engagement through conversation, and a sense of comfort. Engaging older adults living with dementia in the codesign process ensures that their unique needs and challenges are met, thereby enhancing the relevance and usability of these technologies. However, limited evidence exists on effective engagement strategies for codesigning with older adults living with dementia. This scoping review aims to explore the facilitators and barriers to codesigning social robots with older adults living with dementia. Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, we searched six databases including Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar (for grey literature). The inclusion criteria focused on studies involving older adults with dementia in the codesign of social robots. After screening 513 records, six studies met eligibility criteria. Data extraction covered study characteristics, codesign activities, and identified facilitators and barriers. Results: The analysis identified three facilitators: adapted methods for people with dementia, the application of theoretical frameworks to guide codesign, and the inclusion of caregivers in the codesign process. Identified barriers included: unclear roles and information, unfamiliar and uncomfortable environments, and a lack of diversity among participants. Conclusions: This scoping review underscores the need for evidence-based frameworks and inclusive strategies to support the meaningful involvement of older adults living with dementia in social robot codesign. Addressing identified barriers and leveraging facilitators can enhance engagement and ensure that social robots better align with the lived experiences and needs of this population. Future research should explore supportive approaches that promote a more collaborative and dementia-friendly design process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".