Artificial intelligence for older people receiving long-term care: a systematic review of acceptability and effectiveness studies.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced interventions show promise for improving the delivery of long-term care (LTC) services for older people. However, the research field is developmental and has yet to be systematically synthesised. This systematic review aimed to synthesise the literature on the acceptability and effectiveness of AI-enhanced interventions for older people receiving LTC services. We conducted a systematic search that identified 2720 records from Embase, Ovid, Global Health, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. 31 articles were included in the review that evaluated AI-enhanced social robots (n=22), environmental sensors (n=6), and wearable sensors (n=5) with older people receiving LTC services across 15 controlled and 14 non-controlled trials in high-income countries. Risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB 2, RoB 2 CRT, and ROBINS-I tools. Overall, AI-enhanced interventions were found to be somewhat acceptable to users with mixed evidence for their effectiveness across different health outcomes. The included studies were found to have high risk of bias which reduced confidence in the results. AI-enhanced interventions are promising innovations that could reshape the landscape of LTC globally. However, more trials are required to support their widespread implementation. Pathways are needed to support more high-quality trials, including in low-income and middle-income countries.
Competing Interests: Soul Machines (a New Zealand-based AI company) supported KL with a PhD stipend at the time of the research and currently employs her as a Postdoctoral Research Associate (but not at the time the research was conducted); Soul Machines also contracts EB for consultancy work. Soul Machines had no say in the conduct of the study, its interpretation, and its conclusions. All other authors declare no competing interests. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of WHO.
(© 2022 World Health Organization.)