ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Navigating the discourse on the use of social robot Pepper: ethical and practical implications.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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
Abstract
backgroundSocial robots such as Pepper are increasingly researched as potential tools that could support the care of older persons. Our goal is to highlight the multiplicity of perspectives and varied rationales held by participants in Switzerland for accepting or rejecting Pepper when used for caregiving purposes.
methodsQualitative one-on-one interviews were completed with 116 persons living in two linguistic regions of Switzerland. The participants were either (a) older persons; (b) family caregivers; or (c) professional caregivers. Data related to the social robot, Pepper, from the interviews were sorted and analyzed thematically for this paper.
resultsThemes highlight the different reasons for rejecting the use of Pepper, as well as finding space for it when necessary. Specifically, the rejection of Pepper stemmed and varied from just not wanting to use the technology, to perceiving oneself and older persons as being "too old", to having ethical concerns and the omnipresent fear of the replacement of human care. Nevertheless, upon realizing that such social robots might have to be used, participants also discussed some of the advantages for certain groups, tasks where robots may be useful for, as well as the notion of robotic use as a second-best option.
conclusionsNot all older persons will accept the use of robotics tools for their care, even when they may be in need. This study discovered a generational rationale for refusing such robotic care. Individual autonomy to use such tools, costs, and their added value in addressing practical gaps in the lives of older person were important factors to consider when making policy decisions, as well as, in developing technology. There is therefore a greater need for policy makers and technology developers to consider the heterogeneity among the older adult population.
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.