ReviewDigital health
Facilitators and barriers to codesigning social robots with older adults living with dementia: A scoping review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- User requirements for an emotion-intelligent autonomous care robot in long-term care.European geriatric medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social robots are increasingly used to support older adults living with dementia by providing not only reminders and companionship but also emotional support, engagement through conversation, and a sense of comfort. Engaging older adults living with dementia in the codesign process ensures that their unique needs and challenges are met, thereby enhancing the relevance and usability of these technologies. However, limited evidence exists on effective engagement strategies for codesigning with older adults living with dementia. This scoping review aims to explore the facilitators and barriers to codesigning social robots with older adults living with dementia. Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, we searched six databases including Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar (for grey literature). The inclusion criteria focused on studies involving older adults with dementia in the codesign of social robots. After screening 513 records, six studies met eligibility criteria. Data extraction covered study characteristics, codesign activities, and identified facilitators and barriers. Results: The analysis identified three facilitators: adapted methods for people with dementia, the application of theoretical frameworks to guide codesign, and the inclusion of caregivers in the codesign process. Identified barriers included: unclear roles and information, unfamiliar and uncomfortable environments, and a lack of diversity among participants. Conclusions: This scoping review underscores the need for evidence-based frameworks and inclusive strategies to support the meaningful involvement of older adults living with dementia in social robot codesign. Addressing identified barriers and leveraging facilitators can enhance engagement and ensure that social robots better align with the lived experiences and needs of this population. Future research should explore supportive approaches that promote a more collaborative and dementia-friendly design process.
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.