Adult social care provider technology survey 2025
A government survey of technology use by care providers. Sensor-based monitoring was among the most commonly reported technologies, while adoption remained uneven.
Open the sourceResearch
Studies, reviews and public reports relevant to care technology and home robotics.
Current overall position: the 2026 randomized-trial meta-analysis does not support routine clinical adoption of care robots. Current systems are better treated as adjuncts while stronger evidence develops.
A review of robotic pets can support the plausibility of a benefit without proving that a particular retail cat will help a particular person. Product design, implementation, staff involvement and individual preference all matter.
The directory therefore combines broad research with product-specific facts and a conservative evidence grade.
A government survey of technology use by care providers. Sensor-based monitoring was among the most commonly reported technologies, while adoption remained uneven.
Open the sourceA 2026 meta-analysis of 34 randomized studies involving 2,476 participants across 17 countries found only neuropsychiatric symptoms reached nominal significance, and that result was fragile. Prediction intervals crossed no effect for every outcome; evidence certainty was low or very low. The authors do not support routine clinical adoption.
Open the sourceReported possible benefits for several psychosocial outcomes, alongside limited study quality and inconsistent results.
Open the sourceA 2026 systematic review of 16 studies, including 7 randomised controlled trials, found generally improved verbal and non-verbal interaction, engagement and participation. Effects varied with participant characteristics, intervention design and context, and longer-term evidence remains limited.
Open the sourceReviews feasibility, acceptability and clinical-effectiveness evidence for socially assistive robots used with people living with dementia.
Open the sourceFound some evidence of reduced agitation with PARO and highlighted substantial variation between studies and individual responses.
Open the sourceA recent systematic review and meta-analysis covering robotic and non-robotic conversational systems for older adults.
Open the sourceA 2026 scoping review found only 11 rehabilitation-specific empirical studies. Most were small, preliminary or task-specific, with heterogeneous methods and limited follow-up, so the evidence is not yet strong enough for broad comparative-effectiveness claims.
Open the sourceThirteen studies suggested usability but showed substantial variation in devices, populations and adherence measures.
Open the sourceA review that exposed a persistent problem: many systems were tested in laboratories, with too little testing in ordinary homes.
Open the sourceReviews readiness, effectiveness and the evidence needed for monitoring technologies intended to support ageing at home.
Open the sourceExamines GPS devices as tools for locating a missing person and supporting freedom, including usability and ethical tensions.
Open the sourceOutside controlled studies
These reports show how robots are being used in care settings. They are useful signals about deployment and workflow, but they should not be read as clinical-effectiveness evidence.
An August 2026 report from Zhejiang describes emotional-support robots talking with residents, intelligent wheelchairs fetching objects, pressing lift buttons and transporting users, and other robots monitoring vital signs and making routine rounds. The same report says a rehabilitation centre has provided robot-assisted rehabilitation to more than 5,000 people through a public-welfare programme. This is real-world deployment evidence, not a controlled trial.
Open the sourceWe track UK trials, significant robotics advances and systems moving towards home use.