ArticlePloS one2022
Robot-enhanced diabetes care for middle-aged and older adults living with diabetes in the community: A small sample size mixed-method evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in Diabetes Care: Applications, Challenges, and Opportunities Ahead.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2025Review
- User-Centered Prototype Design of a Health Care Robot for Treating Type 2 Diabetes in the Community Pharmacy: Development and Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Approach to Diabetes Care Consultations: Enhancing Patient Engagement and Identifying Therapeutic Issues.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study assessed robot-enhanced healthcare in practical settings for the purpose of community diabetes care.
methodsA mixed method evaluation collected quantitative and qualitative data on diabetes patients over 45 (N = 30) and community pharmacists (N = 10). It took 15-20 min for the diabetes patients to interact with the robot. Before and after the interaction, questionnaires including a diabetes knowledge test, self-efficacy for diabetes, and feasibility of use of the robot was administered. In-depth interviews with both pharmacists and patients were also conducted.
resultsAfter interacting with the robot, a statistically significant improvement in diabetes knowledge (p < .001) and feasibility of the robot (p = .012) was found, but self-efficacy (p = .171) was not significantly improved. Five themes emerged from interviewing the diabetes patients: Theme 1: meets the needs of self-directed learning for the elderly; Theme 2: reduces alertness and creates comfortable interaction; Theme 3: vividness and richness enhance interaction opportunities; Theme 4: Robots are not without disadvantages, and Theme 5: Every person has unique tastes. Three themes emerged from interviewing pharmacists: Theme 1: Technology must meet the real needs of the patient; Theme 2: creates new services, and Theme 3: The use of robots must conform to real-life situations.
conclusionsBoth the diabetes patients and the pharmacist reported more positive feedback on the robot-enhanced diabetes care than concerns. Self-directed learning, comfortable interaction, and vividness were the most focuses when using robot to enhance self-management for the patients. Pharmacists were most receptive to fit conforming with reality and creating new services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.