Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42136587›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2026

Are caregivers for older adults satisfied with the care robots in the workplace? A cross-sectional study in China.

Tingting Yue, Ying Wang, Ziqiong Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tingting YueSchool of Economics and Management, Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Ying WangSchool of Economics and Management, Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Ziqiong LiuSchool of Economics and Management, Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei, Anhui, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: With the aim of enhancing the quality of older adult assistance services and optimizing service processes, the Chinese government has actively promoted a technology empowerment strategy, selecting pilot cities to conduct application demonstrations of care robots. However, significant individual differences exist in the acceptance of care robots among caregivers for older adults, highlighting the need for systematic empirical research to evaluate the practical feasibility of care robots in older adults care scenarios. Purpose: This study examines the motivations of caregivers for older adults toward care robots during caregiving processes, aiming to advance innovation in information technology and public healthcare. Methods: This study constructs an analytical framework to explore the usage satisfaction of caregivers for older adults with care robots and their influencing factors. A total of 544 caregivers for older adults from 15 older adult care institutions were enrolled. Data were analyzed using SPSS and SmartPLS software. Results: Product interaction perception of care robots has a notably affirmative influence on usage satisfaction. Job satisfaction ( Conclusion: The purpose of this study is to investigate caregivers' satisfaction with the use of care robots. The findings provide additional crucial evidence that product interaction perception and AI self-efficacy are associated with the usage satisfaction of caregivers for older adults.

Indexed as

CaregiversJob SatisfactionRoboticsWorkplaceAdultAgedChinaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersonal SatisfactionSelf EfficacyAI self-efficacycaregivers for older adultscare robotjob satisfactionproduct interaction perceptionusage satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID42136587
PMCPMC13167718

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.