Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31342908›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2019

Use of Social Robots in Mental Health and Well-Being Research: Systematic Review.

Arielle Aj Scoglio, Erin D Reilly, Jay A Gorman, Charles E Drebing

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. User Experience in Social Robots.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Arielle Aj ScoglioSocial & Community Reintegration Research Program, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3680-9405
Erin D ReillySocial & Community Reintegration Research Program, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1796-954X
Jay A GormanSocial & Community Reintegration Research Program, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7302-1900
Charles E DrebingSocial & Community Reintegration Research Program, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9649-2684

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnology-assisted clinical interventions are increasingly common in the health care field, often with the proposed aim to improve access to and cost-effectiveness of care. Current technology platforms delivering interventions are largely mobile apps and online websites, although efforts have been made to create more personalized and embodied technology experiences. To extend and improve on these platforms, the field of robotics has been increasingly included in conversations of how to deliver technology-assisted, interactive, and responsive mental health and psychological well-being interventions. Socially assistive robots (SARs) are robotic technology platforms with audio, visual, and movement capabilities that are being developed to interact with individuals socially while also assisting them with management of their physical and psychological well-being. However, little is known about the empirical evidence or utility of using SARs in mental health interventions.

objectiveThe review synthesizes and describes the nascent empirical literature of SARs in mental health research and identifies strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement in future research and practice.

methodsSearches in Medline, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, and IEEE Xplore yielded 12 studies included in the final review after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Abstract and full-text reviews were conducted by two authors independently.

resultsThis systematic review of the literature found 5 distinct SARs used in research to investigate the potential for this technology to address mental health and psychological well-being outcomes. Research on mental health applications of SARs focuses largely on elderly dementia patients and relies on usability pilot data with methodological limitations.

conclusionsThe current SARs research in mental health use is limited in generalizability, scope, and measurement of psychological outcomes. Opportunities for expansion of research in this area include diversifying populations studied, SARs used, clinical applications, measures used, and settings for those applications.

Indexed as

AdultHumansMental HealthMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsRoboticsYoung Adultinterventionsmental healthsocially assistive robotssocial robotics

Identifiers

PMID31342908
PMCPMC6685125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.