Uporaba socialnih robotov in dostojanstvo v oskrbi starejših oseb

Introduction: Existing empirical research addresses various dimensions of dignity and examines the impact of socially assistive robots (SAR) across diverse contexts of use, but an overview of these findings remains fragmented. Therefore, the aim was to provide a comprehensive synthesis of empirical research on the use of SAR in healthcare and long-term care settings involving older adults, with a particular focus on how SAR affect different dimensions of dignity. Methods: A scoping review methodology was applied, following the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and its subsequent refinements. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in February 2026 using the mEga search tool, complemented by a grey literature search. Inclusion criteria focused on empirical studies published in English between 2020 and 2026 addressing SAR in relation to dignity among older adults in healthcare or long-term care settings. Sixteen articles were included after a multi-stage screening process. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis, combining deductive coding based on predefined dignity dimensions with inductive coding. Results: Five dimensions of dignity were identified: universal dignity (Menschenwürde), dignity of identity, dignity in care practices and interactions, dignity in social relations and recognition, and dignity of bodily integrity and privacy. Universal dignity was only marginally addressed in SAR studies, so the analysis focused on the remaining dimensions. The most consistently positive effects of SAR were observed in relation to dignity of identity. SAR were associated with improved psychological well-being, reduced loneliness, and enhanced self-esteem and sense of purpose, particularly among vulnerable groups such as people with dementia. However, risks to this dimension were also identified, especially when SAR were perceived as intrusive or undermining autonomy. Dignity in care practices and interactions was predominantly associated with negative aspects, including concerns about dehumanisation of care, loss of human contact, inauthenticity, deception, and infantilisation. Positive effects were limited and context-dependent, emerging mainly when SAR complemented rather than replaced human care. Dignity in social relations and recognition showed a more balanced pattern. SAR were found to reduce loneliness and facilitate social interaction, but also raised concerns related to stigma, embarrassment, and the perceived inauthenticity of human–robot relationships. Dignity of bodily integrity and privacy presented both benefits and risks. SAR could enhance physical well-being and reduce embarrassment in intimate care situations, but were also associated with significant concerns regarding privacy, monitoring, data sharing, and safety. The findings further indicate that the impact of SAR is shaped by several contextual factors, including the type of robot, user characteristics, prior experience with SAR, and care setting. Studies involving direct interaction with SAR tend to report more positive or balanced outcomes compared to studies based on anticipated use. Conclusion: SAR do not have a uniform impact on dignity. Their effects depend on how they are designed, implemented, and integrated into care and everyday life, as well as on users’ characteristics, experiences, and care contexts. Importantly, the findings highlight a distinction between anticipatory perceptions and lived experiences: while individuals without direct experience often emphasise ethical concerns and potential risks, studies involving actual use tend to report more nuanced and, in some cases, more positive or balanced accounts. The findings underscore the need for context-sensitive, user-informed, and ethically grounded approaches to the design and implementation of SAR in care settings.