Sebastian Schneider
David Silvera-Tawil
Anna-Lisa Vollmer
Ann Majewicz Fey- 1Human Media Interaction, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands
- 2Australian E-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Sydney, NSW, Australia
- 3Interactive Robotics in Medicine and Care, Medical School OWL, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
- 4Human-Enabled Technology Laboratory (HeRo), Texas Robotics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
Editorial on the Research Topic
Interactive robots for healthcare and participation
1 Introduction
The convergence of robotics, artificial intelligence, and human-centered design is transforming healthcare and participation across diverse populations (Ghafurian et al., 2024; Maleki Varnosfaderani and Forouzanfar, 2024; Zhu et al., 2025). Interactive robots, ranging from surgical robots to empathetic healthcare assistants, are increasingly being deployed to address critical challenges in healthcare delivery, aging, mental health, and rehabilitation (Jung et al., 2025; Vandemeulebroucke et al., 2021; Hermann et al., 2024; Shen et al., 2025; Silvera-Tawil, , 2024). This Research Topic explores the multifaceted role of interactive robotics in enhancing care, promoting autonomy, and supporting participation, particularly in contexts of vulnerability and cognitive or physical decline.
1.1 Framing the challenge
Healthcare systems around the world are facing mounting pressure due to demographic shifts, workforce shortages, and the rising demand for personalized, high-quality care (Bernhard et al., 2024). As populations age and chronic conditions become more prevalent, the urgency for scalable, adaptive, and emotionally intelligent technologies grows. Interactive robots offer a promising solution: they can automate routine tasks, provide companionship, support rehabilitation, and facilitate mental health screening while maintaining a human-centered approach (Hermann et al., 2024; Shen et al., 2025; Silvera-Tawil, , 2024).
However, translating these innovations into everyday practice remains challenging. Ethical concerns, usability barriers, and cultural differences often hinder adoption (Olatunji et al., 2025; Rogers et al., 2022), while the slow transfer of research prototypes into real-world applications further compounds the problem. Effective integration requires not only technical excellence but also alignment with clinical workflows, user expectations, and organizational realities (Klemme et al., 2021).
Recent advances show that interactive robotics can significantly enhance patient engagement, improve job satisfaction for healthcare professionals, and boost operational efficiency (Chang et al., 2021; G et al., 2025). Realizing this potential requires close collaboration between researchers and practitioners to bridge the gap between innovation and everyday clinical practice (Gasteiger et al., 2022; Björling and Rose, 2019; Olatunji et al., 2024). This Research Topic responds to that need by presenting interdisciplinary contributions that demonstrate how interactive robots can be effectively designed, evaluated, and integrated into healthcare workflows. Despite these promising developments, a critical challenge remains: aligning technological capabilities with real-world requirements. The following section explores how contributions in this Research Topic address this gap through participatory design, clinician-informed development, and longitudinal deployment.
2 Contributions to the topic
2.1 Enhancing mental health screening and support
Ahmadi Majd et al. introduced a machine learning–based web application for screening Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) using multimedia scenarios and emotion regulation strategies. Their tool achieved high accuracy and reliability, distinguishing between SAD and non-SAD individuals based on their use of suppression, avoidance, and reappraisal. The authors propose integrating this screening approach into socially-assistive robots to improve accessibility and engagement, particularly for individuals reluctant to seek traditional care.
2.2 Supporting mobility and safety in aging populations
Naderer et al. presents a smart robotic walking aid designed to reduce fall risk in older adults through real-time balance monitoring and corrective actuation. The system combines a wearable inertial measurement unit, PID-controlled actuators, and an electromechanical braking mechanism to detect and respond to postural imbalances. Experimental validation demonstrated rapid stabilization and user safety, highlighting the potential of robotics to enhance mobility and independence in aging populations.
2.3 Comfort, companionship, and structure in long-term care
Hofstede et al. explored the use of huggable integrated socially assistive robots (HI-SARs) in long-term care settings (eldercare, disability care, and rehabilitation). These robots combine emotional comfort, verbal interaction, and activity monitoring. Across three studies, HI-SARs were well-received, particularly to support clients with cognitive impairments such as dementia. The authors emphasize the importance of personalization, hygiene management, and proactive use of sensor data to enhance effectiveness.
2.4 Bridging the gap between innovation and implementation
Gebellí and Ros present a comprehensive in situ participatory design methodology for assistive robots in healthcare settings. Their 10-month study at an intermediate healthcare center culminated in a 2-month deployment of an autonomous patrolling and room monitoring robot to enhance patient safety. The iterative co-design process, involving healthcare staff and low-fidelity prototypes, revealed five distinct user personas and highlighted the importance of context-based requirements gathering, adaptive interaction design, and sustained engagement.
Oliva et al. extend this theme to speech-language pathology, employing a four-week asynchronous remote community (ARC) approach with licensed clinicians. Their findings highlight the need for expressive, multimodal communication, customizable behaviors, and strong ethical safeguards. The study reinforces the value of clinician-centered design and positions socially assistive robots (SARs) as tools to augment (not replace) therapeutic relationships.
Tang and Dou provide an economic perspective through a systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery in older adults. While their results confirm the cost-effectiveness of robotic interventions when long-term outcomes and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are considered, they also identify high initial investment as a significant barrier to widespread adoption.
Finally, Nguyen and Saito examine the implementation of nursing care robots in Japan, emphasizing the critical role of hands-on training, user experience, and collaboration between developers and educators. Their study reveals that although care robots can improve operational efficiency and reduce staff stress, concerns about usability, cost, and emotional burden persist.
3 Broader implications and future directions
Together, these contributions underscore the transformative potential of interactive robots in healthcare and reveal critical priorities for future development. First, personalization and adaptability emerge as central themes: robots must be tailored or adaptable to individual needs, preferences, and cultural contexts. Features such as customizable voices, adaptive feedback, and scenario-based interaction enhance engagement and therapeutic effectiveness.
Equally important is ethical and practical integration. Concerns around data privacy, emotional attachment, and task replacement demand responsible innovation frameworks and co-design approaches that actively involve caregivers, clinicians, and patients. It is generally agreed that robots should complement (not replace) human relationships, ensuring emotional safety and trust.
Advances in multimodal interaction––combining speech, touch, motion, and sensor data––enable richer, context-aware experiences. At the same time, scalability and accessibility remain essential for extending care to underserved populations. Web-based tools and cost-effective robotic platforms can bridge gaps in rural communities and support individuals with social anxiety or mobility limitations.
Finally, longitudinal evaluation is critical. Several studies in this Research Topic highlight the need for extended deployments and iterative refinement to understand user behavior, system performance, and real-world impact. Sustained engagement and adaptive design processes will ensure that interactive robots evolve from promising prototypes into practical, widely adopted solutions.
4 Conclusion
Interactive robots are moving beyond research labs into homes, clinics, and care facilities, offering new ways to support health, participation, and wellbeing. This Research Topic demonstrates how thoughtful design, rigorous evaluation, and interdisciplinary collaboration can unlock their full potential. The challenge ahead is not only technological but deeply human: ensuring these systems act as partners in care, enhancing dignity, autonomy, and quality of life across diverse populations.
Achieving widespread adoption will require overcoming barriers related to cost, infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and workforce readiness. Success depends on robust evidence of clinical impact, proactive change management, and strategies that align innovation with human-centered care. By addressing these factors, interactive robots can evolve from promising prototypes into trusted tools that transform healthcare delivery.
Author contributions
SS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. DS-T: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. A-LV: Writing – review and editing. AMF: Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The handling editor EDM declared a past co-authorship with the author AMF at the time of review.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Bernhard, L., Schwingenschlögl, P., Hofmann, J., Wilhelm, D., and Knoll, A. (2024). Boosting the hospital by integrating mobile robotic assistance systems: a comprehensive classification of the risks to be addressed. Aut. Robots 48 (1), 1. doi:10.1007/s10514-023-10154-0
Björling, E. A., and Rose, E. (2019). Participatory research principles in human-centered design: engaging teens in the Co-Design of a social robot. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 3 (1), 8. doi:10.3390/mti3010008
Chang, H. Y., Huang, T. L., Wong, M. K., Ho, L. H., Wu, C. N., and Teng, C. I. (2021). How robots help nurses focus on professional task engagement and reduce nurses' turnover intention. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 53 (2), 237–245. doi:10.1111/jnu.12629
Giansanti, D., Lastrucci, A., Iannone, A., and Pirrera, A. (2025). A narrative review of systematic reviews on the applications of social and assistive support robots in the health domain. Appl. Sci. 15 (7), 3793. doi:10.3390/app15073793
Gasteiger, N., Ahn, H. S., Lee, C., Lim, J., MacDonald, B. A., Kim, G. H., et al. (2022). Participatory design, development, and testing of assistive health robots with older adults: an international four-year Project. J. Hum-Robot Interact. 11 (4), 1–19. Article 45. doi:10.1145/3533726
Ghafurian, M., Chandra, S., Hutchinson, R., Lim, A., Baliyan, I., Rhim, J., et al. (2024). Systematic review of social robots for health and wellbeing: a personal healthcare journey lens. J. Hum-Robot Interact. 14 (1), 1–48. Article 19. doi:10.1145/3700446
Hermann, J., Oktay, S., Lisetschko, A., and Dogangün, A. (2024). “A systematic literature review on the use of social robots in elderly care,” in Proceedings of the 35th Australian computer-human interaction conference (Wellington, New Zealand: Association for Computing Machinery), 221–230.
Jung, H. W., Park, J. Y., Holoubek, T., Kim, W. J., and Park, J. (2025). Socially assistive robots in mental healthcare: principles and conceptual framework for user-centered design. Int. J. Soc. Robotics. doi:10.1007/s12369-025-01323-5
Klemme, I., Richter, B., De Sabbata, K., Wrede, B., and Vollmer, A. L. (2021). A multi-directional and agile academic knowledge transfer strategy for healthcare technology. Front. Robot. AI 8, 789827. doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.789827
Maleki Varnosfaderani, S., and Forouzanfar, M. (2024). The role of AI in hospitals and clinics: transforming healthcare in the 21st century. Bioeng. (Basel) 11 (4), 337. doi:10.3390/bioengineering11040337
Olatunji, S. A., Nguyen, V., Cakmak, M., Edsinger, A., Kemp, C. C., Rogers, W. A., et al. (2024). Immersive participatory design of assistive robots to support older adults. Ergonomics 67 (6), 717–731. doi:10.1080/00140139.2024.2312529
Olatunji, S. A., Falcon, V., Ramesh, A., and Rogers, W. A. (2025). Considerations for designing socially assistive robots for older adults. Front. Robot. AI 12, 1622206. doi:10.3389/frobt.2025.1622206
Rogers, W. A., Kadylak, T., and Bayles, M. A. (2022). Maximizing the benefits of participatory design for human–robot interaction research with older adults. Hum. Factors 64 (3), 441–450. doi:10.1177/00187208211037465
Shen, J., Yu, J., Zhang, H., Lindsey, M. A., and An, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence-powered social robots for promoting physical activity in older adults: a systematic review. J. Sport Health Sci. 14, 101045. doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2025.101045
Silvera-Tawil, D. (2024). Robotics in healthcare: a survey. SN Comput. Sci. 5 (1), 189. doi:10.1007/s42979-023-02551-0
Vandemeulebroucke, T., Dzi, K., and Gastmans, C. (2021). Older adults' experiences with and perceptions of the use of socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of quantitative evidence. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 95, 104399. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2021.104399
Keywords: assistive robotics, rehabilitation, human-robot interaction, healthcare, co-design, socially-assistive robotics
Citation: Schneider S, Silvera-Tawil D, Vollmer A-L and Majewicz Fey A (2025) Editorial: Interactive robots for healthcare and participation. Front. Robot. AI 12:1750188. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2025.1750188
Received: 19 November 2025; Accepted: 29 November 2025;
Published: 10 December 2025.
Edited and Reviewed by
Elena De Momi, Polytechnic University of Milan, ItalyCopyright © 2025 Schneider, Silvera-Tawil, Vollmer and Majewicz Fey. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sebastian Schneider, cy5zY2huZWlkZXJAdXR3ZW50ZS5ubA==