ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025
A Scoping Review on Long-Term Care Workers' Perceptions of Robot-Assisted Care for Older Adults in Long-Term Care Facilities.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of Group Interventions With Socially-Assistive Robots for Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Service Robots as Work Support for Health Personnel in Long-Term Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo synthesise the current research on long-term care workers' perceptions (i.e., attitudes, concerns, and expected functions) of robot-assisted care and their perceived effects of different types of robot-assisted care for older adults in long-term care facilities.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted in July 2024 using five databases. Articles published between 2010 and 2024 on the perceptions and/or perceived effects of robot-assisted care for older adults among frontline long-term care workers in long-term care facilities were identified. Additionally, the reference lists of the included articles were manually searched.
methodsA five-step framework that guided the development of research questions, screening of studies, and synthesis and presentation of data was adopted. Two authors independently screened and analysed the identified articles. Conflicts were resolved through joint-discussions.
resultsForty-one articles were included in the review. Data were narratively synthesised into three categories: expected function of care robots, perceived effects of robot-assisted care, and attitudes and concerns regarding robot-assisted care. Subcategories were identified and presented in tabular form.
conclusionThis review shows the physical, psychological, social, and practical benefits and limitations of different types of robot-assisted care. It also contributes to understanding long-term care workers' attitudes, concerns, and expectations regarding the function of robot-assisted care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Having a priori discussion with long-term care workers about their expectations regarding using robot-assisted care is needed. Improvements in the design and in the digital literacy of the workers are also necessary. IMPACT: This review provides an overview of the perceptions and perceived effects of different types of robot-assisted care among care workers in long-term care facilities. The findings provide practical implications and highlight areas in need of further studies. REPORTING
methodScoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.
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.