Human-robot interaction based on artificial intelligence in clinical healthcare centers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 5.5 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Computers in human behavior reports Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-27 DOI:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101080
Mohammad Milad Shafaie , Alireza Salehnia , Negin Moslem , Vahid Shafaie , Majid Movahedi Rad
{"title":"Human-robot interaction based on artificial intelligence in clinical healthcare centers: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Mohammad Milad Shafaie ,&nbsp;Alireza Salehnia ,&nbsp;Negin Moslem ,&nbsp;Vahid Shafaie ,&nbsp;Majid Movahedi Rad","doi":"10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into human-robot interaction (HRI) in healthcare has fundamentally revolutionized the emotional, social, and cognitive interaction between humans and robotic systems. This systematic review examines how AI-powered healthcare bots affect patient trust, therapeutic alliance, and user bonding. A PRISMA-compliant literature search was conducted in five major databases: PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Springer, and MDPI, covering studies published in English between 2010 and 2025. The inclusion criteria targeted experimental research, including evaluation studies, of AI-enhanced HRI in clinical and assistive fields. Reviews, non-experimental work, and studies without AI integration were excluded. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), while robvis was used to generate visual summaries of the risk-of-bias assessments. Meta-analysis calculated Diagnostic Odds Ratios (95% CI) for reported diagnostic outcomes. Bibliometric visualization was performed using VOSviewer. The results show that visualized and emotionally intelligent robots outperformed virtual agents in delivering emotional security and therapeutic value. However, diagnostic accuracy was low (AUC≈0.39; pooled specificity = 0.53) with substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> ˜ 68%), and meta-regression identified no significant moderators, leaving residual variability (τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.479). Gaps between user expectations and responsiveness limited engagement, and limited longitudinal designs restricted long-term insights. RoB 2 indicated moderate methodological variability. Despite these constraints, culturally adaptive robotic systems enhance clinical communication and patient trust, underscoring the importance of personalization and emotional intelligence in future AI healthcare robots.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72681,"journal":{"name":"Computers in human behavior reports","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 101080"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in human behavior reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958826001545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into human-robot interaction (HRI) in healthcare has fundamentally revolutionized the emotional, social, and cognitive interaction between humans and robotic systems. This systematic review examines how AI-powered healthcare bots affect patient trust, therapeutic alliance, and user bonding. A PRISMA-compliant literature search was conducted in five major databases: PubMed, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Springer, and MDPI, covering studies published in English between 2010 and 2025. The inclusion criteria targeted experimental research, including evaluation studies, of AI-enhanced HRI in clinical and assistive fields. Reviews, non-experimental work, and studies without AI integration were excluded. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2), while robvis was used to generate visual summaries of the risk-of-bias assessments. Meta-analysis calculated Diagnostic Odds Ratios (95% CI) for reported diagnostic outcomes. Bibliometric visualization was performed using VOSviewer. The results show that visualized and emotionally intelligent robots outperformed virtual agents in delivering emotional security and therapeutic value. However, diagnostic accuracy was low (AUC≈0.39; pooled specificity = 0.53) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 ˜ 68%), and meta-regression identified no significant moderators, leaving residual variability (τ2 = 0.479). Gaps between user expectations and responsiveness limited engagement, and limited longitudinal designs restricted long-term insights. RoB 2 indicated moderate methodological variability. Despite these constraints, culturally adaptive robotic systems enhance clinical communication and patient trust, underscoring the importance of personalization and emotional intelligence in future AI healthcare robots.
基于人工智能的人机交互在临床医疗中心:系统回顾和荟萃分析
将人工智能(AI)集成到医疗保健领域的人机交互(HRI)中,从根本上彻底改变了人与机器人系统之间的情感、社会和认知互动。这篇系统综述探讨了人工智能医疗机器人如何影响患者信任、治疗联盟和用户关系。在PubMed、Scopus、IEEE explore、施普林格和MDPI这五个主要数据库中进行了符合prisma标准的文献检索,涵盖了2010年至2025年间发表的英文研究。纳入标准针对临床和辅助领域的人工智能增强HRI的实验研究,包括评估研究。综述、非实验性工作和没有人工智能集成的研究被排除在外。使用修订后的Cochrane随机试验偏倚风险工具(RoB 2)评估方法学质量和偏倚风险,同时使用robvis生成偏倚风险评估的可视化摘要。荟萃分析计算了报告诊断结果的诊断优势比(95% CI)。使用VOSviewer进行文献计量可视化。结果表明,可视化和情感智能机器人在提供情感安全和治疗价值方面优于虚拟代理。然而,诊断准确性较低(AUC≈0.39;合并特异性= 0.53),异质性显著(I2 ~ 68%), meta回归未发现显著调节因子,留下剩余变异(τ2 = 0.479)。用户期望和响应之间的差距限制了用户粘性,而有限的纵向设计限制了长期洞察力。罗布2表明方法学有中度差异。尽管存在这些限制,具有文化适应性的机器人系统增强了临床沟通和患者信任,强调了个性化和情商在未来人工智能医疗机器人中的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书