Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33030557›Full record

ReviewZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2020

[Autonomous assitive robots for older people at home: An exploratory study : "He is always there for me-and I for him too"].

Sibylle Meyer, Christa Fricke

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Sibylle MeyerSIBIS Institut für Sozial- und Technikforschung GmbH, Richard Wagner Str. 19, 10585, Berlin, Deutschland. sm@sibis-berlin.de.
Christa FrickeSIBIS Institut für Sozial- und Technikforschung GmbH, Richard Wagner Str. 19, 10585, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of autonomous assistive robots in the domestic environment of old people and the possible effects on the quality of life is a relatively new field of research. Given the relatively limited technical robustness of these robots, autonomous assistive robots have only rarely been tested in real life situations; therefore, valid data in this field are very limited. This article reports on one of these rare exploratory trials in the domestic setting and examines the following questions: will people older than 60 years perceive living with an autonomous robot as a benefit or a burden? What impact could assistive robots have on the quality of life and loneliness? To explore the socioscientific aspects of these research questions, an autonomous robot was developed for use in private homes. The robot can move and approach people independently and accompany them through their daily lives. The robot was tested in 20 households of older people over 5 days without surveillance by members of the project. This evaluation investigated how old people experienced the robot in their homes and what effect it had on their daily routine and quality of life. The predominantly qualitative results demonstrated that the autonomous assistive SYMPARTNER robot was primarily received positively and it was considered to improve participants' daily life and mitigate the negative effects of living alone. The presented findings were derived from the 3‑year project "SYMPARTNER" (2016-2019) funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Indexed as

RoboticsSelf-Help DevicesActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overHumansQuality of LifeAcceptanceAmbient assisted livingEmotionsLonelinessQuality of life

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.