ArticleScientific reports2025
Stakeholder acceptance of a robot-assisted social training scenario for autistic children compared to a tablet-computer-based approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Child behavior recognition in social robot interaction using stacked deep neural networks and biomechanical signals.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Who Wants to Have an AI Therapist? Acceptance of Using Artificial Intelligence for Mental Health Interventions Among Clinicians, Patients and the General Community.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies indicate the potential benefits of robot-assisted therapy (RAT) for children on the autism spectrum (AS), yet acceptance among stakeholders remains unclear due to methodological shortcomings in existing research. This study evaluates stakeholders' acceptance of a RAT-scenario designed to train emotion recognition and regulation in AS children using Softbank Robotics Pepper, a humanoid robot with an integrated tablet screen, compared to a tablet-based therapy (TBT) control. An online survey of 123 stakeholders (caregivers, professionals, and autistic adults) assessed RAT and TBT using global acceptance, intention to use, and acceptance-related factors (ALMERE model), alongside stakeholders' concerns. While a larger proportion of stakeholders (58%) showed high global acceptance of RAT, stakeholders preferred TBT across measures and groups (p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.595), potentially due to its established familiarity and easier usability. The intention to use RAT was predicted by perceived usefulness, and, to a smaller extent, perceived ease of use, and affinity for technology, independent of stakeholder group. Concerns mainly addressed the expected effort to implement RAT in therapeutic services. Overall, the results highlight stakeholder acceptance and underscore the need to enhance RAT's perceived usefulness and ease of implementation, suggesting a user-centered design approach for future deployments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.