MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414202207 · doi:10.3390/jal5030034

Independent Living for Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Narrative Review of Stakeholder Perceptions and Experiences with Assistive and Socially Assistive Robots

2025· article· en· W4414202207 on OpenAlex
Delaram Sirizi, Morteza Sabet, Katelyn Hummel, Juanita-Dawne Bacsu, Zahra Rahemi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ageing and Longevity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersClemson UniversityAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsPerceptionContext (archaeology)CognitionNarrativeQualitative researchInclusion (mineral)Independent livingStakeholderNarrative reviewPhoto elicitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: (1)Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are a major cause of mortality among older adults globally. The cognitive decline associated with ADRD often reduces individuals' ability to live independently over time, increasing reliance on caregivers. Assistive and socially assistive robots offer a promising means of supporting independent living. This narrative review examined how older adults with ADRD, their caregivers, and healthcare providers perceive and experience interactions with robots. Methods: (2)Guided by the Population, Phenomenon of Interest, and Context (PICo) framework, five databases were searched. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Extracted data were summarized, and a convergent synthesis integrated qualitative and quantitative findings. Results: (3)Drawing on content analysis, the qualitative findings were organized into three domains: user perceptions and experiences, barriers to adoption, and suggestions for improvement. Quantitative results emphasized usability, usefulness, acceptance, satisfaction, feature preferences, and barriers. While most stakeholders viewed robots as beneficial, acceptance was shaped by factors such as design features, timing of introduction, familiarity with technology, and perceived need. Conclusions: (4)This review highlights priorities for future research and development, including personalization, ethical safeguards, and caregiver integration, to improve the acceptance and effectiveness of robot-assisted support for individuals with cognitive impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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