MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226373394 · doi:10.2196/preprints.36094

Social Robot Interventions in Mental Health Care and Their Outcomes, Barriers, and Facilitators: Scoping Review (Preprint)

2021· preprint· en· W4226373394 on OpenAlexaff
Imane Guemghar, Paula Pires de Oliveira Padilha, Amal Abdel‐Baki, Didier Jutras‐Aswad, Jesseca Paquette, Marie‐Pascale Pomey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMental healthPsychological interventionMEDLINEPsychologySystematic reviewAutism spectrum disorderMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryAutism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND The use of social robots as innovative therapeutic tools has been increasingly explored in recent years in an effort to address the growing need for alternative intervention modalities in mental health care. OBJECTIVE The aim of this scoping review was to identify and describe social robot interventions in mental health facilities and to highlight their outcomes as well as the barriers and facilitators to their implementation. METHODS A scoping review of the literature published since 2015 was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO databases were searched, and 2239 papers were retrieved. The papers included were primary empirical studies published in peer-reviewed literature. Eligible studies were set in mental health facilities and they included participants with a known mental health disorder. The methodological quality of the included papers was also assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS A total of 30 papers met the eligibility criteria for this review. Studies involved participants with dementia, cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, depression, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and an intellectual disability. The outcomes studied included engagement, social interaction, emotional state, agitation, behavior, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS The methodological weaknesses of the studies conducted this far and the lack of diversity in the conditions studied limit the generalizability of the results. However, despite the presence of certain barriers to their implementation (eg, technical problems, unsuitable environment, staff resistance), social robot interventions generally show positive effects on patients with mental health disorders. Studies of stronger methodological quality are needed to further understand the benefits and the place of social robots in mental health care.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Mental Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→