ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2025
A field study to explore user experiences with socially assistive robots for older adults: emphasizing the need for more interactivity and personalisation.
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seeking the right match: a hermeneutic phenomenological study of how older adults negotiate anthropomorphic perceptions, role identity and functional needs in elderly care robots.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Living with a robot at home: the complexity of living with assistive robots in everyday life.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Article
- AnFrontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- Considerations for designing socially assistive robots for older adults.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Older adults often desire to remain in their homes for as long as possible, and Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) can play a role in supporting this goal. However, the acceptance and adoption rates of SARs remain relatively low, suggesting that current designs may not fully address all user needs. Field studies in Human-Robot Interaction, particularly those involving multiple end-users, remain limited. Nevertheless, such studies are crucial for identifying factors that shape the user experience with SARs, potentially improving their acceptance and adoption in healthcare settings. Therefore, this study aims to explore user perspectives, referred to as factors, that could guide design considerations for SAR development. We conducted a field study with 90 participants across Italy, Switzerland, and the Netherlands to identify these factors and their implications for improving the SAR user experience for older adults and their formal and informal caregivers. SARs were placed in the homes of older adults, and interviews were conducted with the three groups of primary end-users, at the beginning, midpoint, and end of the two-to six-week trial period. We initially focused on four factors (personalisation, interactivity, embodiment, and ethical considerations), identified in earlier design phases of the related 3-year Guardian project. Our findings confirmed the importance of these factors while uncovering additional ones. Personalisation and interactivity emerged as the most important ones among these factors. Based on our insights, we recommend involving all primary end-users in SAR research and design process and prioritising field studies to refine design elements. In conclusion, our study identified six factors for SAR design that can enhance the user experience: personalisation, interactivity, embodiment, ethical considerations, connectedness, and dignity. These findings provide valuable guidance for developing SARs that may better address the needs of older adults and their caregivers.
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.