Service Robots as Work Support for Health Personnel in Long-term Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Demographic shifts are increasing the global demand for long-term care services, coinciding with a worldwide shortage of health care personnel. Service robots, designed to perform tasks in both professional and personal use, are perceived as a potential solution to alleviate health care personnel's workload and enhance the quality of care. However, the existing literature is fragmented and heterogeneous, with a limited emphasis on the role of service robots in supporting residents rather than health care personnel. Furthermore, there is a lack of consistent definitions of service robotic technologies and a scarcity of studies on implementation models and frameworks. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to map and synthesize evidence regarding the implementation of service robots as work support for health care personnel in long-term care settings. METHODS: A comprehensive 3-step search will be conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, CENTRAL, Scopus, and CINAHL, along with gray literature databases and institutional repositories. Eligible sources encompass empirical studies and gray literature involving service robots, health care personnel, residents aged 65 years or older, and stakeholders such as informal caregivers within institutional long-term care. Exclusions apply to studies on home care, medical or industrial robots, and nonrobotic technologies. Data will be extracted and analyzed using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, with findings presented in tables, diagrams, and narrative summaries to identify gaps and inform future research and implementation strategies. RESULTS: The project has been funded for a 4-year period starting in April 2025. This protocol was developed in October 2025 and subsequently registered in November 2025. A comprehensive search strategy was formulated and completely conducted on October 24, 2025. The screening of 4884 titles and abstracts was completed in December 2025, resulting in the retrieval of 64 (1.3%) full-text articles for eligibility assessment. Subsequent phases, including data extraction, analysis, evidence synthesis, and presentation of results, will be conducted sequentially. The scoping review is expected to be finalized by June 2026. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review is expected to delineate the extent and characteristics of the existing evidence on service robots as work support for health personnel in long-term care settings. It will highlight the key reported outcomes and challenges encountered in implementation studies, as well as the theoretical frameworks, models, and concepts applied to address these issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework QWK58; https://osf.io/qwk58/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/89435.
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 | 0.083 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.020 |
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".