Health Care Professionals’ Perspectives of Socially Assistive Robots in Health Care Settings: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) are key stakeholders whose acceptance, preparedness, and ethical considerations influence the integration of socially assistive robots (SARs). This review explores HCPs' perspectives on SARs integration into clinical practice. While previous research has focused on patient outcomes, ethical considerations, or general SARs deployment, limited evidence exists on how HCPs perceive, engage with, and address SARs implementation challenges.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically analyze HCPs' perspectives on the clinical implementation of SARs, including acceptance, challenges, barriers, educational needs, and ethical concerns.

METHODS: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines, we searched 13 databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE [OVID], Web of Science, Embase, UpToDate, CEPS, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global), with the final search on July 29, 2025. Eligible studies involved research with HCPs, examining their attitudes, perceptions, acceptance, or willingness to use SARs through qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods designs. Studies were excluded if they focused on non-HCP populations, did not primarily investigate SARs, or lacked original data. Risk of bias was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized thematically and mapped to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework.

RESULTS: A total of 15 studies (6 qualitative, 5 quantitative, and 4 mixed methods) involving 3166 HCPs across 10 countries were included. Participants were predominantly nurses and midwives (1960/3166, 61.9%), female (2618/3166, 82.7%), and based in hospital and long-term care settings across Europe (1709/3166, 54%) and Asia (1266/3166, 40%). Study quality was generally moderate, with 1 high-quality and 2 low-quality studies. Within the UTAUT framework, HCPs anticipated benefits of SARs in workload reduction, enhanced care efficiency, and improved patient well-being. However, they expressed concerns about technological reliability, maintenance requirements, role clarity, and professional identity. Acceptance was generally favorable but varied by profession, workplace, and relational attributes. Training needs, usability, and design were critical adoption determinants. Ethical concerns centered on privacy, informed consent, and equitable access.

CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence was limited due to moderate methodological quality, small sample size, self-developed instruments, and inconsistent reporting, which constrain generalizability, this review synthesis suggests that HCPs perceive SARs as beneficial for reducing workload, enhancing efficiency, and supporting patient well-being. However, there are also concerns regarding technological reliability, ethical challenges, and role boundaries. Acceptance is facilitated by ethical literacy, training, and organizational readiness. Interdisciplinary strategies that integrate educational, ethical, and structural considerations to promote the adoption of responsible SARs in health care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251079714; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251079714.