1. This scoping review aimed to identify the methodologies used in studies evaluating the feasibility, usability, efficacy, and effectiveness of social robots for elderly people, including those with dementia.
2. 33 papers were included in the review, which studied 23 different social robots among elderly adults and people with dementia in 13 countries.
3. Most of the studies had a single aim, of which 7 (21.2%) focused on efficacy and 7 (21.2%) focused on effectiveness. Feasibility and usability were often studied together in mixed methods or experimental designs and were most often studied in individual interventions.
The article “Journal of Medical Internet Research - Methodologies Used to Study the Feasibility, Usability, Efficacy, and Effectiveness of Social Robots For Elderly Adults: Scoping Review” is a well-structured scoping review that provides an overview of the methodologies used to evaluate social robots for elderly people. The authors conducted a comprehensive search strategy across four databases to identify relevant studies that met their inclusion criteria. The quality assessment revealed that primary and secondary outcomes were clearly defined in all studies but eligibility criteria was not reported in 12 (36.4%) papers and study design was not clearly described in 12 out of 33 (36.4%) papers.
The article is generally reliable as it provides an overview of existing research on social robots for elderly people while highlighting potential methodological limitations such as inadequate sample sizes or lack of randomized controlled trials which could affect study outcomes. However, there are some points that should be noted when considering the trustworthiness and reliability of this article:
1) The authors did not provide any information about potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding for the included studies which could have biased their results or conclusions;
2) The authors did not discuss any possible risks associated with using social robots for elderly people such as privacy concerns or safety issues;
3) The authors did not explore any counterarguments to their findings or consider alternative explanations for their results;
4) The authors did not provide any evidence to support their claims about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of social robots;
5) The authors did not present both sides equally when discussing the potential benefits and drawbacks associated with using social robots for elderly people;
6) Finally, there may be promotional content within this article as it does not provide a balanced view on the use of social