Socially assistive robots offer an alternate source of connection for interventions within health and social care amidst a landscape of technological advancement and reduced staff capacity. There is a need to summarise the available systematic reviews on the health and wellbeing impacts to evaluate effectiveness, explore potential moderators and mediators, and identify recommendations for future research and practice. To explore the effect of socially assistive robots within health and social care on psychosocial, behavioural, and physiological health and wellbeing outcomes across the lifespan (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration: (). An umbrella review utilising meta-analysis, narrative synthesis, and vote counting by direction of effect. 14 databases were searched (ProQuest Health Research Premium collection, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, ASM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Cochrane Reviews, and EPISTEMONIKOS) from 2005 to May 4, 2023. Systematic reviews including the effects of socially assistive robots on health outcomes were included and a pooled meta-analysis, vote counting by direction of effect, and narrative synthesis were applied. The second version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was applied to assess quality of included reviews. 35 reviews were identified, most focusing on older adults with or without dementia (n = 24). Pooled meta-analysis indicated no effect of socially assistive robots on quality of life (standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.43), anxiety (SMD = −0.02), or depression (SMD = 0.21), although vote counting identified significant improvements in social interaction, mood, positive affect, loneliness, stress, and pain across the lifespan, and narrative synthesis identified an improvement in anxiety in children. However, some reviews reported no significant difference between the effects of socially assistive robots and a plush toy, and there was no effect of socially assistive robots on psychiatric outcomes including agitation, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and medication use. Socially assistive robots show promise for improving non-psychiatric outcomes such as loneliness, positive affect, stress, and pain, but exert no effect on psychiatric outcomes such as depression and agitation. The main mechanism of effect within group settings appeared to be the stimulation of social interaction with other humans. Limitations include the low quality and high amount of overlap between included reviews. Socially assistive robots may help to improve loneliness, social interaction, and positive affect in older adults, decrease anxiety and distress in children, and improve mood, stress, and reduce pain across the lifespan. However, before recommendations for socially assistive robots can be made, a cost-effectiveness analysis of socially assistive robots to improve mood across the lifespan, and a quantitative analysis of the effects on pain, anxiety, and distress in children are required.

中文翻译：

---

探索社交辅助机器人对整个生命周期健康和福祉的影响：总体回顾和荟萃分析

在技​​术进步和员工能力下降的情况下，社交辅助机器人为健康和社会护理干预提供了替代连接来源。有必要总结现有的关于健康和福祉影响的系统评价，以评估有效性、探索潜在的调节因素和调节因素，并为未来的研究和实践确定建议。探索健康和社会护理领域的社交辅助机器人对整个生命周期心理社会、行为和生理健康和福祉结果的影响（国际前瞻性系统评价登记册 (PROSPERO) 注册：()。利用荟萃分析进行的综合评价，检索了 2005 年至 2023 年 5 月 4 日期间的 14 个数据库（ProQuest Health Research Premium collection、Scopus、PubMed、Web of Science、ASM Digital Library、IEEE Xplore、Cochrane Reviews 和 EPISTEMONIKOS）。系统评价包括社交辅助机器人对健康结果的影响，并应用了汇总荟萃分析、按效果方向计票和叙述综合。评估系统评价的测量工具（AMSTAR-2）。 ）用于评估纳入的评论的质量，确定了 35 篇评论，其中大多数关注患有或不患有痴呆症的老年人（n = 24）。汇总荟萃分析表明，社交辅助机器人对生活质量（标准均差（SMD）= 0.43）、焦虑（SMD = -0.02）或抑郁（SMD = 0.21）没有影响，尽管计票发现社交辅助机器人在社交方面有显着改善。互动、情绪、积极情绪、孤独、压力和一生中的痛苦以及叙事综合表明儿童焦虑有所改善。然而，一些评论报告称，社交辅助机器人和毛绒玩具的效果没有显着差异，并且社交辅助机器人对精神结果（包括激越、神经精神症状和药物使用）没有影响。社交辅助机器人有望改善孤独、积极情绪、压力和疼痛等非精神症状，但对抑郁和躁动等精神症状没有影响。群体环境中的主要影响机制似乎是刺激与其他人的社交互动。局限性包括所包含评论的质量低且重叠量大。社交辅助机器人可能有助于改善老年人的孤独感、社交互动和积极影响，减少儿童的焦虑和痛苦，并改善情绪、压力并减少一生中的疼痛。然而，在提出社交辅助机器人的建议之前，需要对社交辅助机器人在整个生命周期中改善情绪的成本效益进行分析，并定量分析其对疼痛、焦虑、并需要儿童的痛苦。