ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2024
Assimilation of socially assistive robots by older adults: an interplay of uses, constraints and outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and Carer-Related Facilitators and Barriers to the Adoption of Assistive Technologies for the Care of Older Adults: Systematic Review.JMIR aging · 2025Pooled it
- Inpatient Nurses' Anticipatory Perspectives on Assistive Robots: Qualitative Study.JMIR nursing · 2026Article
- Personalized versus standardized socially assistive robots for loneliness and depression reduction in older adults: study protocol for a three-arm randomized controlled trial.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Socially Assistive RobotJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- AnFrontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
By supporting autonomy, aging in place, and wellbeing in later life, Socially Assistive Robots are expected to help humanity face the challenges posed by the rapid aging of the world's population. For the successful acceptance and assimilation of SARs by older adults, it is necessary to understand the factors affecting their Quality Evaluations Previous studies examining Human-Robot Interaction in later life indicated that three aspects shape older adults' overall QEs of robots: uses, constraints, and outcomes. However, studies were usually limited in duration, focused on acceptance rather than assimilation, and typically explored only one aspect of the interaction. In the present study, we examined uses, constraints, and outcomes simultaneously and over a long period. Nineteen community-dwelling older adults aged 75-97 were given a SAR for physical training for 6 weeks. Their experiences were documented via in-depth interviews conducted before and after the study period, short weekly telephone surveys, and reports produced by the robots. Analysis revealed two distinct groups: (A) The 'Fans' - participants who enjoyed using the SAR, attributed added value to it, and experienced a successful assimilation process; and (B) The 'Skeptics' - participants who did not like it, negatively evaluated its use, and experienced a disappointing assimilation process. Despite the vast differences between the groups, both reported more positive evaluations of SARs at the end of the study than before it began. Overall, the results indicated that the process of SARs' assimilation is not homogeneous and provided a profound understanding of the factors shaping older adults' QE of SARs following actual use. Additionally, the findings demonstrated the theoretical and practical usefulness of a holistic approach in researching older SARs users.
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.