ArticleScientific reports2025
Human-robot interactions and experiences of staff and service robots in aged care.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-Robot Interaction in Indoor Mobile Robotics: Current State, Interaction Modalities, Applications, and Future Challenges.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- An Integrated Analysis of Factors Influencing Acceptance of Care Robots Among Older Korean Adults.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on usefulness, acceptability and implementation conditions of socially assistive robots in France: a cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Accelerating RRT* convergence with novel nonuniform and uniform sampling approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Does Humanness Matter? An Ethical Evaluation of Sharing Care Work with Social Robots.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Assistive Robotics in Healthcare Services: Applications in Silver Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rise of robotics in aged care is transforming how older adults are cared for, addressing staff shortages and workload. Daily interactions with staff and residents highlight an urgent need to better understand and improve human-robot interactions. This study investigates how 34 staff interacted with 10 service robots in a regional Australian aged care facility over 5 years, focusing primarily on their experience with service robots that transported meals and laundry. Guided by the Almere model, the research employs a qualitative case study approach, drawing on observations, focus groups, and interviews with management, industry leaders, and frontline staff. Findings are categorised into Emotional Reactions, Human-Robot Interaction and Collaboration, Social License and Environmental Dynamics. Results indicate conditional acceptance of service robots with scepticism about the service robots' reliability and practical utility. Our study highlights the importance of a supportive environment, robust infrastructure and adequate training for successful robotic adoption. It also argues for engaging diverse multi-tiered stakeholders in investigating, designing, and implementing robotics in aged care, emphasising the role of social behaviours and interactions for what we propose as functional social service robots.
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.