Effects of social robots on depressive symptoms in older adults: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This review scopes evidence on the use of social robots for older adults with depressive symptoms, in the scenario of smart cities, analyzing the age-related depression specificities, investigated contexts and intervention protocols' features. Design/methodology/approach Studies retrieved from two major databases were selected against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were included if used social robots, included older adults over 60, and reported depressive symptoms measurements, with any type of research design. Papers not published in English, published as an abstract or study protocol, or not peer-reviewed were excluded. Findings 28 relevant studies were included, in which PARO was the most used robot. Most studies included very older adults with neurocognitive disorders living in long-term care facilities. The intervention protocols were heterogeneous regarding the duration, session duration and frequency. Only 35.6% of the studies had a control group. Finally, only 32.1% of the studies showed a significant improvement in depression symptoms. Originality/value Despite the potential for using social robots in mental health interventions, in the scenario of smart cities, this review showed that their usefulness and effects in improving depressive symptoms in older adults have low internal and external validity. Future studies should consider factors as planning the intervention based on well-established supported therapies, characteristics and needs of the subjects, and the context in which the subjects are inserted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it