ArticleDigital health
Healthcare professionals' experiences with the SARA robot in long-term care for people with dementia and people with intellectual disabilities.
Article 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the user experiences of healthcare professionals working with Social & Autonomous Robotic Health Assistant (SARA), a humanoid social robot, in long-term care (LTC) for people with dementia and people with intellectual disabilities (IDs). Secondarily, barriers to and facilitators for the implementation of SARA in LTC were identified. Lastly, the usability of the robot was explored. Design: A qualitative design using semi-structured interviews. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was used to explore the usability of the robot. Setting and participants: Seven healthcare professionals from 2 Dutch LTC organizations (one for dementia care and one for ID care) participated. Methods: Online semi-structured interviews were conducted. The SUS was completed online before the interview. Data were analyzed thematically using both an inductive and deductive approach. Results: Three themes were identified: 1) acceptance of SARA by all involved, 2) impact of SARA on all involved, and 3) user-friendliness. The acceptance of SARA among healthcare professionals grew over time. SARA may enhance job satisfaction and enjoyment. The reported impact on residents was predominantly positive. The few negative effects were seen when offered activities did not match the situation or the resident's needs. Although implementation required a time investment, healthcare professionals saw the potential of SARA to save time. Barriers to and facilitators for the implementation of SARA were identified: adequate education about working with SARA, high motivation among staff, and support from the supplier were reported as the most important facilitators. The usability was considered marginally acceptable. Participants provided recommendations to further improve SARA. Conclusions and implications: The user experiences with SARA were predominantly positive, making the robot a promising aid for healthcare professionals in delivering high-quality, personalized care in LTC. Quantitative studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of SARA. The usability of the robot may be improved by adhering to the recommendations when upgrading SARA.
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.