ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Development of an ethical framework for the use of social robots in the care of individuals with major neurocognitive disorders: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research hotspots, knowledge structure, and emerging trends in healthcare robotics for older adults: a bibliometric analysis (2015-2026).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Digital Technologies That Support Meaningful Connections in Care Homes: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the growing use of social robots in geriatric care, there is a lack of standardized ethical guidelines to inform and guide professionals in their implementation.
objectiveThis study has two main objectives: 1) to understand how professionals conducting social robot interventions (SRIs) perceive and approach the ethical issues linked to the use of social robots with older adults, and 2) to establish ethical guidelines to help professionals carry out SRIs with older adults with major neurocognitive disorders.
methodsFor this descriptive qualitative study, we conducted interviews with 20 healthcare professionals working in geriatric facilities. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and an inductive content analysis was performed to identify certain themes and recommendations concerning the use of social robots with older adults with major neurocognitive disorders.
resultsSix main themes emerged from the analysis of the interviews: deciding on and preparing the robot's integration into an institutional setting, preparing a robotic intervention, introducing the robot to older adults, obtaining consent or assent, conducting a robotic-mediated intervention, and observing the effects of social robot use.
conclusionThe use of social robots should be guided by the same ethical guidelines followed in all therapeutic interventions; however, healthcare professionals express a need for special training and preparation for SRIs in geriatric settings. We have drafted several preliminary recommendations for carrying out SRIs with older adults with major neurocognitive disorders. Future research should focus on standardizing guidelines and creating an accessible format for training.
trial registrationIRB N°: 00012021-110.
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.