Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A scoping review examines occupational therapists' views on robotics, revealing mixed sentiments and complexities in integration.
Purpose: Robotics offer promising advancements in occupational therapy, spanning motor rehabilitation, assistive technologies, remote interventions, and socially interactive systems.As technology evolves, these tools have the potential to deliver greater efficiency, adaptability, and personalised rehabilitation.However, there is limited research examining how robotics are perceived and experienced by occupational therapists in practice.Design/Methodology/Approach: Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, we searched four databases and grey literature.Of the 377 articles screened, eight studies met inclusion criteria.Data were analysed thematically using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Findings: The review identified four themes: benefits for patient engagement and functional outcomes; barriers such as complexity, cost, and training gaps; contextual influences including funding, organisational readiness, and socio-cultural factors; and the evolving professional role.CFIR analysis highlights that the adoption of robotics into occupational therapy is shaped by interconnected organisational, individual, and policy factors rather than clinical benefits alone.Research limitation/ implications: Evidence is limited to eight studies, primarily in adult rehabilitation, highlighting the need for research in diverse contexts and populations.Originality/Value: This scoping review synthesises occupational therapists' perspectives on robotics across diverse practice settings.This review identified cautious optimism among occupational therapists, shaped by perceived benefits for patient engagement alongside barriers of cost, complexity, and training gaps; CFIR analysis reveals that adoption is driven by organisational culture, funding, and professional identity rather than clinical potential alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ryan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: