Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.


The promise of technology in the future of dementia care


Dementia is a leading cause of disability, and the prevalence of dementia is steadily increasing. Although people with dementia are living longer lives in the community, without adequate support for their declining physical and psychological needs, the majority of these individuals end up in nursing homes. With no cure in sight, and in the context of population ageing, we must consider how to care for these individuals in the future. Technologies that augment existing care can maintain a person comfortably in their community, maximize individual autonomy and promote social participation. However, to date, such technologies have rarely been used in dementia care. This Perspectives article highlights the need for affordable and appropriate technologies to assist future dementia care, outlines some of the technologies currently available and describes the many challenges to integration of such technologies. Finally, guidelines are suggested for the development and implementation of new technologies in dementia care.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: International dementia statistics over time and projected.


  1. Patterson, C. World Alzheimer Report 2018: the state of the art of dementia research: new frontiers. ADI (2018).

  2. World Health Organization. Towards a dementia plan: a WHO guide. WHO (2018).

  3. United Nations. World population prospects: the 2017 revision. UN (2017).

  4. Andrews, E. S. Institutionalising senile dementia in 19th-century Britain. Sociol. Health Illn. 39, 244–257 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gove, D., Small, N., Downs, M. & Vernooij-Dassen, M. General practitioners’ perceptions of the stigma of dementia and the role of reciprocity. Dementia (London) 16, 948–964 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weisman De Mamani, A., Weintraub, M. J., Maura, J., Martinez de Andino, A. & Brown, C. A. Stigma, expressed emotion, and quality of life in caregivers of individuals with dementia. Fam. Process 57, 694–706 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kristanti, M. S., Engels, Y., Effendy, C., Utarini, A. & Vernooij-Dassen, M. Comparison of the lived experiences of family caregivers of patients with dementia and of patients with cancer in Indonesia. Int. Psychogeriatr. 30, 903–914 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Samus, Q. M. et al. Home is where the future is: the BrightFocus Foundation consensus panel on dementia care. Alzheimers Dement. 14, 104–114 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Poey, J. L., Burr, J. A. & Roberts, J. S. Social connectedness, perceived isolation, and dementia: does the social environment moderate the relationship between genetic risk and cognitive well-being? Gerontologist 57, 1031–1040 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goonawardene, N., Toh, X. P. & Tan, H.-P. in Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications, Services And Contexts Vol. 2 (eds Zhaou, J. & Salvendy, G.) 378–392 (Springer, 2017).

  11. Beer, J. M. et al. Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: attitudinal changes following brief exposure. Gerontechnology 16, 21–36 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vandemeulebroucke, T., de Casterle, B. D. & Gastmans, C. How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Ment. Health 22, 149–167 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The RAMCIP Consortium. What is RAMCIP? RAMCIP-project (2018).

  14. Gerlowska, J. et al. Assessment of perceived attractiveness, usability, and societal impact of a multimodal robotic assistant for aging patients with memory impairments. Front. Neurol. 9, 392 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. The RAMCIP Consortium. RAMCIP at the 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2018). RAMCIP-project (2018).

  16. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. Press release: intelligent robotics. Fraunhofer start-up award 2017 for Mojin Robotics GmbH. Fraunhofer (2018).

  17. Feuilherade, P. Robots pick up the challenge of home care needs: growing number of dedicated robots for the care sector to cover multiple tasks for carers and patients. IEC e-tech (2017).

  18. Shiomi, M., Lio, T., Kamei, K., Sharma, C. & Hagita, N. Effectiveness of social behaviors for autonomous wheelchair robot to support elderly people in Japan. PLOS ONE 10, e0128031 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bedaf, S., Gelderblom, G. J. & de Witte, L. Overview and categorization of robots supporting independent living of elderly people: what activities do they support and how far have they developed. Assist. Technol. 27, 88–100 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pettigrew, S., Talati, Z. & Norman, R. The health benefits of autonomous vehicles: public awareness and receptivity in Australia. Aust. NZ J. Public Health 42, 480–483 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wong, S. Driverless cars are dodging pedestrians and pheasants in Oxford. New Scientist (2018).

  22. Bedaf, S., Marti, P., Amirabollahian, F. & de Witte, L. A multi-perspective evaluation of a service robot for seniors: the voice of different stakeholders. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 13, 592–599 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mordoch, E., Osterreicher, A., Guse, L., Roger, L. & Thompson, G. Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature review. Mauritas 74, 14–20 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cleetus, K. J. in Concurrent Engineering: Tools and Technologies for Mechanical System Design (ed. Haug, E. J.) 41–74 (Springer, 1993).

  25. Rafinejad, D. in Core Competency, Core Activies, and Leveraging Resources (ed. Rafinejad, D.) 270–273 (J. Ross, 2007).

  26. Foloppe, D. A., Richard, P., Yamaguchi, R., Etcharry-Bouyx, F. & Allain, P. The potential of virtual reality-based training to enhance the functional autonomy of Alzhiemer’s disease patients in cooking activities: a single case study. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 28, 709–733 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lizuka, A. et al. Pilot randomized controlled trial of the GO game intervention on cognitive function. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Demen. 33, 192–198 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moyle, W. et al. Use of a robotic seal as a therapeutic tool to improve dementia symptoms: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 18, 766–773 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones, C. et al. Does cognitive impairment an agitation in dementia influence intervention effectiveness? Findings from a cluster-randomised controlled trial with the therapeutic robotic, PARO. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 19, 623–626 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Joranson, N. et al. Group activity with PARO in nursing homes: systematic investigation of behaviors in participants. Int. Psychogeriatr. 28, 1345–1354 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hu, H.-J., Wu, P.-F. & Wang-Chin, T. in Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications, Services And Contexts (eds Zhaou, J. & Salvendy, G.) 42–52 (Springer, 2017).

  32. RIKEN-TRI Collaboration Center for Human-Interactive Robot Research (RTC). Concept: world’s first robot that can lift up a human in its arms (RIBA). RTC (2018).

  33. de Graaf, M. M. A., Allouch, S. B. & Klamer, T. Sharing a life with Harvey: exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43, 1–14 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee, H. R., Tan, H. & Sabanovic, S. in IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) 312–317 (Columbia Univ. Press, 2016).

  35. Pfadenhauer, M. & Dukat, C. Robot caregiver or robot-supported caregiving? The performative development of the social robot PARO in dementia care. Int. J. Soc. Robot 7, 393–406 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Trynacity, K. Close Enough to Care: Replacing Human Caregivers with Robots in Homecare. Thesis, Royal Roads Univ. (2015).

  37. Wachsmuth, I. Robots like me: challenges and ethical issues in aged care. Front. Psychol. 9, 432 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Robillard, J. M., Cleland, I., Hoey, J. & Nugent, C. Ethical adoption: a new imperative in the development of technology for dementia. Alzheimers Dement. 14, 1104–1113 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. European Commission. Special eurobarometer 427: autonomous systems. (2015).

  40. Carretero, S. JRC science and policy reports. Technology-enabled services for older people living at home independently: lessons for public long-term care authorities in the EU Member States. JRC (2015).

  41. European Commission. The world’s first culturally sensitive robots for elderly care. CORDIS (updated 12 Dec 2018).

  42. European Commission. Living with dementia, feeling lonely and isolated? MARIO the robot can help. CORDIS (updated 11 May 2018).

  43. Coeckelbergh, M. Artificial agents, good care, and modernity. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 36, 265–277 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Matthias, A. Robot lies in health care: when is deception morally permissible? Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 25, 169–192 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Metzler, T. A. & Barnes, S. J. Three dialogues concerning robots in elder care. Nurs. Philos. 15, 4–13 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Holly, R. Stephen Hawking gets a tech upgrade from Intel, but keeps his original voice. (2014).

  47. Burch, J. In Japan, a Buddhist funeral service for robot dogs. National Geographic (2018).

  48. Santos Rutschman, A. Faster approval for drugs and medical devices under the 21st Century Cures Act raises concerns for patient safety. The Conversation (2017).

  49. Van Norman, G. A. Drugs, devices, and the FDA: part 2: an overview of approval processes: FDA approval of medical devices. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 1, 277–287 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shaw, J., Shaw, S., Wherton, J., Hughes, G. & Greenhalgh, T. Studying scale-up and spread as social practice: theoretical introduction an empirical case study. J. Med. Internet Res. 19, e244 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bowman Rogers, M. Technology for patients: purring robots, digital data-gathering. ALZFORUM (2018).

  52. Australian Government Department of Health. About the home care packages program. (updated 21 Apr 2017).

  53. Schwenk, M. et al. Sensor-derived physical activity parameters can predict future falls in people with dementia. Gerontology 61, 483–492 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ferri, C. P. et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet 366, 2112–2117 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Prince, M. & Jackson, J. World Alzheimer Report 2009. ADI (2009).

  56. Prince, M. et al. World Alzheimer Report 2015: the global impact of dementia. an analysis of prevalence, incidence, cost and trends. ADI (2015).

  57. Prince, M. Guerchet, M. & Prina, M. The epidemiology and impact of dementia: current state and future trends. WHO (2015).

  58. Neubauer, N. A. et al. What do we know about technologies for dementia-related wandering? A scoping review. Can. J. Occup. Ther. 85, 196–208 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gaugler, J. E. et al. Six-month effectiveness of remote activity monitoring for persons living with dementia and their family caregivers: an experimental mixed methods study. Gerontologist 59, 78–89 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G., Jonker, P. & de Witte, L. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 13, 114–120 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kouroupetroglou, C. et al. Interacting with dementia: the MARIO approach. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 242, 38–47 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Whelan, S. et al. Investigating the effect of social robot embodiment. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 242, 523–526 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Moyle, W. et al. Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasiblity study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatr. 14, 7 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Liang, A. et al. A pilot randomized trial of a companion robot for people with dementia living in the community. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 18, 871–878 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Brown, E. et al. Technologies for dementia care: opportunities, challenges, and current practices. J. Appl. Gerontol. 38, 73–91 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Hill, N. T. et al. Computerized cognitive training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Psych. 174, 329–340 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lee, G. J. et al. A comparison of the effects between 2 computerized cognitive training programs, Bettercog and COMCOG, on elderly patients with MCI and mild dementia: a single-blind randomized controlled study. Medicine (Baltimore) 97, e13007 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M. & Williamson, K. M. Evidence-based practice, step by step: searching for the evidence. Am. J. Nurs. 110, 41–47 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The author thanks J. Murfield and L. Earle for their help with preparation and referencing of this article.

Reviewer information

Nature Reviews Neurology thanks K. Rejdak, T. Shibata, A. S. Rigaud and L. Robinson for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy Moyle.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Alzheimer Master:

Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration:



The Talking Photo Album (CommunicATe):

Dawn Clocks:

European Commission:



Google Home:

Wireless movement sensors (Just Checking):




Obi Robotic Spoon:


RAMCIP (Robotic Assistant for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) Patients at home):

Riken and Robear:

Find Me Tunstall Watch:


Artificial intelligence

(AI). An area of computer science that emphasizes the creation of machines that function and respond similarly to humans. Computerized AI systems have been designed for speech recognition, machine learning, planning and problem-solving.

Internet of Things

(IoT). The interconnection of computing devices embedded in everyday objects, which enables them to send and receive data over the Internet.

Social baggage

A metaphor that represents our experiences and memories that we bring with us from our past.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moyle, W. The promise of technology in the future of dementia care. Nat Rev Neurol 15, 353–359 (2019).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing