ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Personalized versus standardized socially assistive robots for loneliness and depression reduction in older adults: study protocol for a three-arm randomized controlled trial.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07102017 (The Impact of Socially Supportive Robotic Intervention on Loneliness, Depression, Self-agency and Well-being in Long-term Care Residents), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
The Impact of Socially Supportive Robotic Intervention on Loneliness, Depression, Self-agency and Well-being in Long-term Care Residents: A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe global population is aging at an unprecedented rate, presenting substantial challenges to healthcare systems and social support networks. Loneliness and depression have emerged as critical public health concerns among older adults, associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare utilization. Socially assistive robots (SARs) represent a promising intervention, yet a fundamental question remains unresolved: whether the additional resources required for a personalized approach yield superior benefits compared to a more standardized interaction.
aimThe purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of a personalized, co-designed robot interaction against a standardized, fixed robot interaction for reducing loneliness, depression, as well as improving self-agency and quality of life in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a three-arm randomized controlled trial. The study will be conducted at a community center in Fuzhou, China, with 100 participants aged 65 + recruited from the facility. The participants will be randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) Co-designed robot (CL) group receiving a personalized robot interaction with a structured co-design ceremony; (2) Standard robot (SL) group interacting with an identical robot without personalization features; or (3) An attention-controlled usual care (CU) group. The intervention comprises 16 sessions (two weekly 20-minute sessions over eight weeks). The primary outcomes are loneliness and depressive symptoms. Secondary outcomes include general self-efficacy, quality of life, as well as staff and participants’ perceptions of the robot. Mechanism measures (i.e., engagement, self-disclosure) and manipulation checks (e.g., perceived personal role) will be employed to elucidate the underlying theoretical pathways. Data will be collected at baseline (T0), after the initial 2-week co-design period (T1), post-intervention (T2, Week 8), and at 1-month (T3) and 3-month (T4) follow-ups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study participants or their proxy will provide written informed consent. The University Ethics Committee has approved the study (H20250560I). The results of the study will provide evidence of the efficacy of a co-design intervention regarding robotic pets as a psychosocial treatment for older adults in the long-term care facilities. Findings will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials Registry number NCT07102017, date registered 16/11/2025.
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.