ArticleDigital health
Health professionals' perspectives on the implementation of social robots interventions for dementia care in France: An interview and focus group study.
Article in Digital health. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychosocial interventions using social robots aim to enhance the quality of life of older adults, particularly those with dementia. While much research has focused on robot-user interactions, fewer studies have explored how health professionals perceive and use social robots in geriatric care settings. Objective: This study investigates the perspectives of health professionals on the implementation and integration of social robot interventions (SRIs) in dementia care institutions in France. It aims to identify their perceptions of social robots, perceived benefits, and the organizational and ethical issues associated with their use. Methods: This qualitative study involved 21 interviews and focus groups with 36 professionals from 13 geriatric institutions. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore how social robots were introduced, how teams adapted, and what benefits and challenges were reported. The guide was informed by the European health technology assessment approach (HTA Core Model), which encourages analysis across multiple dimensions, including clinical relevance, organizational impact, and ethical considerations. Data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results: Participants described robots being used for emotional support, cognitive stimulation, and recreational activities that encouraged social interaction and improved mood. While robots did not replace core caregiving goals, they offered new ways to engage residents and prompted reflection on professional practices and relationships with residents. Reported benefits included increased resident attention and emotional engagement, opportunities for personalized activities, and renewed motivation among staff. Organizational challenges included limited training, time constraints, and unclear strategies for integrating robots into existing routines. Ethical concerns centered on respecting resident autonomy and consent and avoiding activities that might be perceived as infantilizing. Conclusion: Social robots hold promise as complementary tools in dementia care. Their successful integration depends on technical feasibility, ethical considerations, institutional support, and sustainable implementation strategies rooted in the principles of person-centered care.
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.