ArticleNursing ethics2026
An interview study on socially assistive robots and professional care relationships.
Article in Nursing ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundThe shortage of skilled healthcare workers, intensified by demographic change, has stimulated interest in robotic solutions for elderly care. While assistive robots typically perform practical tasks, socially assistive robots (SARs) are increasingly taking on communicative and relational roles, raising ethical concerns. Critics fear that SARs will disrupt the professional caregiver-client relationship and replace, rather than complement, human workers.AimThis study explores how SARs influence the professional care relationships and the professional self-understanding.Research designA qualitative interpretive study design.Participants and research contextUsing a constructivist grounded theory approach, we analyzed twelve semi-structured interviews with professional caregivers experienced in using SARs in Germany and four additional interviews with stakeholders involved in their development and implementation (2023-2024).Ethical considerationsThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Potsdam (No. 84/2022).ResultsCaregivers initially feared that SARs would replace the relational and emotional dimensions of care. However, practical experience changed their perspective. Instead of seeing SARs as substitutes, caregivers came to view them as part of a triadic care model involving the caregiver, the client, and the robot. This model reinforces the central role of caregivers in integrating SARs while maintaining emotional and relational care. SARs were accepted as tools to reduce physical workload, but caregivers emphasized that emotional support and relationship-building must remain human tasks.ConclusionUsing SARs reshapes the perspective of caregivers, fostering a triadic relationship in which they remain central. They act as mediators, ensuring that SARs function as supportive tools rather than substitutes. Caregivers set ethical boundaries, prioritizing human empathy and relational care. This evolving role highlights the continued importance of the human presence in care, even as robotic technologies advance.
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.