ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Assistive Robotics for Healthy Aging: A Foundational Phenomenological Co-Design Exercise.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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.
- Living with a robot at home: the complexity of living with assistive robots in everyday life.Frontiers in dementia · 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
backgroundAssistive robotics for helping older people live well and stay independent has, to date, failed to fulfill its promise: there are few assistive robots in everyday use. In part, this failing can be attributed to inadequate or missing co-design activities that would ensure that these technologies and any services that incorporate them are developed with prospective end users, addressing their actual needs and wants, and not merely for them, and based on lazy assumptions about heterogeneous user groups.
objectiveThis exercise aimed to address some of these limitations by taking a "phenomenological snapshot" of what it means to be an older person in the current sociotechnological context, and making this snapshot, along with the co-design materials developed, available to the wider assistive robotics community to provide solid foundational evidence for steering the development of assistive robotics in more productive directions.
methodsTwo rounds of co-design workshops have been conducted with older people and their caregivers, based on an innovative methodology that used personas and speculative designs to explore sensitive everyday difficulties faced by participants and highlight some of their general wishes for and concerns about assistive robotics. The data collected during the workshops were analyzed, and key themes were extracted.
resultsAnalysis of the workshop data gives access to the lived experience of older people and their caregivers, and their opinions about domestic robotics and assistive technologies more generally. The findings are organized thematically as everyday difficulties, the daily problems faced by older people; ideas for aging better, older people's own suggestions for how their lives could be improved; and living with technology, their preferences and requirements for assistive robots, along with their concerns about what the introduction of robots might mean, both for themselves and for society more widely.
conclusionsWe believe that our findings provide solid foundational evidence for the development of assistive robotics for older people. We are in the process of disseminating these results through various channels to the wider assistive robotics community; ultimately, the success of our activities will be demonstrated only through the development of acceptable, useful, and viable assistive robotics for older people.
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.