Home › Research › Digital health tools
Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness
Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, de Witte L.. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2010-12-15
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The ongoing development of robotics on the one hand and, on the other hand, the foreseen relative growth in number of elderly individuals suffering from dementia, raises the question of which contribution robotics could have to rationalize and maintain, or even improve the quality of care. The objective of this review was to assess the published effects and effectiveness of robot interventions aiming at social assistance in elderly care. We searched, using Medical Subject Headings terms and free words, in the CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane, BIOMED, PUBMED, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases. Also the IEEE Digital Library was searched. No limitations were applied for the date of publication. Only articles written in English were taken into account. Collected publications went through a selection process. In the first step, publications were collected from major databases using a search query. In the second step, 3 reviewers independently selected publications on their title, using predefined selection criteria. In the third step, publications were judged based on their abstracts by the same reviewers, using the same selection criteria. In the fourth step, one reviewer made the final selection of publications based on complete content. Finally, 41 publications were included in the review, describing 17 studies involving 4 robot systems. Most studies reported positive effects of companion-type robots on (socio)psychological (eg, mood, loneliness, and social connections and communication) and physiological (eg, stress reduction) parameters. The methodological quality of the studies was, mostly, low. Although positive effects were reported, the scientific value of the evidence was limited. The positive results described, however, prompt further effectiveness research in this field.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bemelmans, R., Gelderblom, G. J., Jonker, P., & de Witte, L. (2012). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002
Vancouver
Bemelmans R, Gelderblom GJ, Jonker P, de Witte L. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002. PMID: 21450215.
BibTeX
@article{bemelmans2012-21450215,
author = {Bemelmans, R. and Gelderblom, G. J. and Jonker, P. and de Witte, L.},
title = {{Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a systematic review into effects and effectiveness}},
journal = {Journal of the American Medical Directors Association},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002},
pmid = {21450215},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The positive results described, however, prompt further effectiveness research in this field.
Why it matters
This systematic review assessed published effects of socially assistive robots in elderly care, including people with dementia. It found mostly positive effects but calls for further effectiveness research, and it is about care assistance, not treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 64 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Medical Directors Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (OpenAlex dates this DOI to 2010, the record says 2012; OpenAlex values not used) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 8 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21450215) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 35 / 64 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 64 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Later studies that cite this one
8 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “delirium”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.