ArticleJMIR aging2026
Humanoid Robot-Assisted Support for Health Care in Older Adults: Systematic Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research hotspots, knowledge structure, and emerging trends in healthcare robotics for older adults: a bibliometric analysis (2015-2026).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- From companion technologies to social care infrastructure: A multi-level perspective on loneliness-related support in dementia care in an era of artificial intelligence (AI).Global health & medicine · 2026Article
- Humanoid Robot-Assisted Support for Health Care in Older Adults: Systematic Scoping Review.JMIR aging · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Humanoid robots offer a promising solution to the growing burden of care for older adults. However, existing evidence on their applications for general aging populations remains fragmented and lacks systematic synthesis. Objective: This scoping review aimed to examine the literature on humanoid robot-assisted support for health care in older adults and identify gaps in the literature to guide future research. Methods: The methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley was used to conduct this scoping review. We conducted a comprehensive search in 8 databases, including IEEE Xplore Digital Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and OpenGrey Repository, covering literature published up to April 30, 2025. The reference lists of key texts were examined, and citation chaining was conducted. Two independent reviewers examined all full articles for fitness with the eligibility criteria and extracted data elements. The study findings were then summarized, coded, and analyzed using the PAGER (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations) framework. Results: A total of 32,477 articles were retrieved, 59 of which were included in this review. The majority (49/59, 83%) were conducted in real-world settings. Methodologically, 34 studies (34/59, 58%) had small sample sizes (n≤25), with study designs comprising 26 quantitative (26/59, 44%), 22 mixed method (22/59, 37%), and 11 qualitative (11/59, 19%) approaches. Participant characteristics revealed female predominance (>50%) in 32 studies (32/59, 54%), while 27 studies (27/59, 46%) included participants with cognitive impairment. Through PAGER framework analysis, we identified 4 key patterns: (1) effects, perceptions, and experiences of humanoid robots; (2) preferences, expectations, and facilitators for humanoid robots; (3) implementation barriers and challenges; and (4) determinants of user experiences and outcomes. Conclusions: This scoping review demonstrates the promising yet methodologically constrained potential of humanoid robots in health care for older adults while highlighting key challenges in their practical implementation. Successful integration will require addressing technical limitations, user acceptance barriers, and systemic adoption challenges.
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.