Systematic Review of Social Robots for Health and Wellbeing: A Personal Healthcare Journey Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social robots have great potential in supporting individuals’ physical and mental health/wellbeing. While they have been increasingly evaluated in some domains, such as with children with autism, their evaluation has not been as extensive in other areas. We present a systematic review of domains in which social robots have been evaluated specifically in health/wellbeing contexts. We ask which robots have been evaluated, who the participants were, and how participants interacted with the robots. PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. Articles with children as participants, using a purely robotic device, and in languages other than English were excluded. A total of 9,362 peer-reviewed articles (up to February 2021) from ACM DL, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, PubMed, and PsychInfo were identified. After applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria 443 articles were included in the review. The majority of studies were conducted at care centers while studies in hospitals/clinics have seen relatively limited attention. In many cases, the social robots were not programmed for specific health-related tasks, limiting their application. We also discuss robots used in real-world settings and propose a “Personal healthcare journey,” which includes different stages of one’s life which could benefit from a social robot, with the goal of increasing long-term adoption of social robots for supporting health/wellbeing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".