Table 4 Summary of barriers and facilitators

 1.1 Relative advantage

• Relative cost as compared to other technology [70]

• Less audibility [38, 75, 76]

• Sense of presence [38, 70, 74,75,76]

• Mobility aspect [74].

• More conducive for people with dementia [70, 74]

• Maintenance-free [60, 72]

• Proactivity [56]

• Economic advantage [59]

 1.2 Adaptability

• Vocalisations [83]

• Functions [45]

• User interface or interaction [41, 46, 53, 63]

• Physical inaccessibility [41, 47, 59, 68, 74, 77, 78, 81, 84]

• Physical accessibility [41, 74]

• Customisability of interactivity or functions [47, 64]

 1.3 Complexity

• Pre-programmed instructions [39, 46]

• Complicated functions [39, 41, 75,76,77, 83, 85, 88]

• Compose or program activities [61]

• Multimodal interaction features [41, 67, 75, 76]

• Ease of use [39,40,41, 52, 57, 59,60,61, 65, 68, 74, 76, 81, 88]

 1.4 Design quality and packaging

• Audio and speech issues [39,40,41, 43, 46, 47, 53, 63, 71, 74,75,76, 81, 84, 86, 88, 89],

• Hardware problems [43, 58, 70]

• Unreliable functions [39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 58, 59, 65, 71, 81, 85, 89, 90],

• Unpredictable intentions

[39, 40, 43, 51]

• Other technical difficulties [43, 47, 54, 61, 77]

• Physical attributes [16, 45, 67, 68, 72, 83]

• Design [71, 72, 81, 83]

• Acceptable and/or pleasant appearance [41, 45, 54, 63, 64, 67, 68, 82, 86, 88]

• Interactivity and proactivity [40, 41, 57, 58, 77, 84, 85],

• Robustness [44, 57, 89]

 1.5 Cost

• High acquisition and maintenance cost [44, 57, 69, 72, 77, 83, 88]

 2.1 Patient needs and resources

• Unfamiliar with technology [51, 74, 88]

• Cognitive impairment [41, 48, 49, 53, 67, 74, 88]

• Independence in managing daily tasks [60, 77, 88]

• Limited usefulness of the robot [40, 41, 45, 51, 57, 65, 83, 87]

• Doubts about sustained benefits [57, 86, 88].

• Intrusiveness or privacy [45, 46, 51, 57, 83, 88]

• Negative affect [40, 47, 53, 59, 64, 65, 71, 88]

• Negative perceptions or stigma [40, 44, 51, 52, 54, 55, 62, 71, 80, 81, 88]

• Support and familiarisation [47, 57, 79, 88]

• Emotional support [41, 52, 57, 58, 60, 82,83,84,85]

• Companionship [44, 45, 60, 77, 82, 83]

• Improvement to daily life [40, 58, 63, 81]

• Entertainment [41, 45, 50, 63, 64]

• Reminiscence [41, 45, 71]

• Reminders [54, 58, 64]

• Phased introduction and training [46]

• Prolonged use [46, 47, 51, 70].

 2.2 External policy/incentives

• Align care work with national care policy [75, 76]

 3.1 Compatibility

• Institutional regulations: privacy, space and safety privacy [38, 75, 84]

• Confused/frightened residents [59]

• Background noises [41, 53, 75]

• Concern about misuse of technology [38, 75, 76]

• Lack of support from co-workers [61]

• Delineate professional boundary [38, 75, 76]

• Ethical concerns [42, 68, 71, 73]

• Hygiene [42, 44, 72, 73]

• Interfere with routine

• Physical environment [40]

• Supported work of care professionals [47, 59, 68, 76, 84]

• Integration into care routine [42, 47, 49, 75, 84]

• Positioning of social robots [51, 60, 65]

• Adaptation of physical environment [40, 41]

 3.2 Relative priority

• Existing care work/processes took precedence [66, 68, 75]

• Workplace tension [68]

 3.3 Leadership engagement

• Leadership involvement and commitment [61]

 3.4 Available resources

• Poor network connectivity [38, 39, 55, 61, 68, 70, 74,75,76, 81]

• Lack of manpower, time or training [42, 66, 68,69,70]

• Computer incompatibility [74]

• Improved network infrastructure [61]

• Time and support for care professionals [61].

 3.5 Access to knowledge and information

• Access to support in rural areas [77]

• Dedicated helpdesk within care facility [61]

• Individualised intervention instructions/manual [42, 43, 61]

 4.1 Knowledge and beliefs

• Initial ambivalence/negative attitudes [42, 47, 59, 66, 68, 72, 74, 81]

• Fear of damaging robot [59, 77]

• Privacy concern [38, 75, 76]

• Fear of job replacement [47, 59]

• Negative perceptions, which stemmed from technical challenges/ perceived lack of usefulness [59, 61, 74, 75]

• Evolved attitude after witnessing positive impacts on older adults/people with dementia [42, 44, 47, 49, 56, 66, 68,69,70, 72, 74, 75, 80, 81]

• Understanding that robots cannot replace their jobs [47]

• Motivation to support robot interactions [42, 61, 84]

• Alignment to organisation visions [61]

 4.2 Self-efficacy

• Unequipped to program and compose activities [61]

• Gain experience over time [61]

 5.1 Planning

• Assign robot with a clearly indicated role [84]

 5.2 Engaging

• Public exposure facilitated engagement and change in perceptions [49, 59, 70]

 5.3 Key stakeholders

• Negative attitudes of care professionals [69]

• Care professionals’ enthusiasm [66]

• Active engagement with care professionals [84]

• Mediation of robot interactions [43, 47,48,49,50, 67]

 5.4 External change agents

• Lack of sustainability [47]

• Support robot interactions [40, 41, 49, 74, 76]

• Provide technical support [39, 43, 77]