ArticleInnovation in aging2025
Robotic Technology in the Care of Older Persons: A Cross-Sectional National Survey Among Adults in Switzerland.
Article in Innovation in aging, 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.
- Mapping Ethical Blind Spots in the Use of New Technologies to Support Elder Care.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Navigating the discourse on the use of social robot Pepper: ethical and practical implications.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Using Monitoring Technologies to Care for Older Persons: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey in Switzerland.Gerontology · 2026Article
- The "ELDERDES" model: how older adults' adoption of digital environment solutions improves residential experiences, health outcomes, and enables independent living.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
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
Background and Objectives: Robotic technologies will likely be part of the caregiving needs for older adults in the future. In this study, we assessed the acceptance of several robotic functions among a representative sample of adults in Switzerland and tested (a) the acceptance of different robotic functions, and (b) explored how different sets of predictors explained variance in the acceptance of 2 robotic functions: (a) "robots for assistive support" and (b) "robots for companionship." Research Design and Methods: A survey was administered to a randomly selected group of adults from the 3 official linguistic regions of Switzerland using computer-aided-telephone-interviews. Data obtained were weighted for the Swiss adult population and analyzed using descriptive statistics, multilevel modeling, and sequential regression analysis. Results: A total of 1,211 adults responded to the survey. Acceptance was higher for using "robots for assistive support" than "robots for companionship," with no significant statistical difference between linguistic regions. Usefulness of robotic functions in reducing caregiving stress explained the most variance in our model for both outcome variables. External predictors such as the fear of robots and the fear that robots will replace human care explained the least amount of variance. Discussion and Implications: When robots are used in the care of older adults, user adoption is likely to be positive when the end-users (older persons and their caregivers) perceive that their use meaningfully reduces caregiving stress. More research is needed to further test the role of external factors for technology adoption, especially those that touch the notion of human contact.
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.