Robots sociales en oncología pediátrica: características de las intervenciones, factibilidad y desenlaces emocionales, sociales y conductuales. Una revisión de alcance

Ricardo A.  Gálvez-Arévalo; Sebastián Rony Caballa Barrientos; Alicia Janeth Mafaldo Rengifo; María del Pilar Jiménez Montes; Rosa María Acosta Huayama; Oscar Plasencia Ramos

doi:10.59594/iicqp.2026.v4n1.167

Authors

Ricardo A. Gálvez-Arévalo Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima 15023, Peru. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1006-1523
Sebastián Rony Caballa Barrientos Department of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima 15088, Peru. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8356-2003
Alicia Janeth Mafaldo Rengifo Hematology Service, Instituto Nacional de Salud del Niño San Borja, Lima 15037, Peru. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2693-5683
María del Pilar Jiménez Montes Pediatrics and Pediatric Specialties Subunit, Instituto Nacional de Salud del Niño San Borja, Lima 15037, Peru. https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0561-6000
Rosa María Acosta Huayama Pediatrics and Pediatric Specialties Subunit, Instituto Nacional de Salud del Niño San Borja, Lima 15037, Peru. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7044-2435
Oscar Plasencia Ramos Private practice in Psychology, San Isidro, Lima 15073, Peru. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9496-4473

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59594/iicqp.2026.v4n1.167

Keywords:

Robotics, Social Robots, Medical Oncology, Psycho-Oncology, Child, Adolescent, Psychosocial Impact

Abstract

Objective: To synthesize the available evidence on social robot interventions, emotional, social, and behavioral outcomes, and feasibility indicators associated with their use in children and adolescents with cancer receiving care in clinical settings.

Methods: Primary studies with experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and mixed-methods designs that evaluated interventions using social robots in children and adolescents with cancer were included. The search was conducted up to January 20, 2026, in PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Emotional, social, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes were collected, as well as feasibility indicators, including safety, technical performance, recruitment, completeness and retention, acceptability, and logistics and implementation barriers.

Results: A total of 307 records were identified, and six studies were included. Findings were heterogeneous in terms of design, sample size, robot type, and outcomes. Favorable results were observed in emotional and social outcomes, whereas no consistent evidence of pain reduction during invasive procedures was documented, although more adaptive behaviors were reported during critical stages of the procedure. Overall, high acceptability was observed among children, parents, and healthcare personnel, but feasibility was influenced by technical, logistical, and staffing barriers.

Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that social robots are potentially feasible and promising interventions to support emotional and social outcomes in pediatric oncology. However, findings are derived from small, heterogeneous, and exploratory studies, highlighting the need for future research with more robust methodological designs, standardized measures, and systematic feasibility assessments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Maurice-Stam H, van Erp LME, Maas A, van Oers HA, Kremer LCM, van Dulmen-den Broeder E, et al. Psychosocial developmental milestones of young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(8):6839-49. doi: 10.1007/s00520-022-07113-3

2. Wiener L, Kazak AE, Noll RB, Patenaude AF, Kupst MJ. Standards for the Psychosocial Care of Children With Cancer and Their Families: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62 Suppl 5:S419-24. doi: 10.1002/pbc.25675

3. Steele AC, Mullins LL, Mullins AJ, Muriel AC. Psychosocial Interventions and Therapeutic Support as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62 Suppl 5:S585-618. doi: 10.1002/pbc.25701

4. Littler BKM, Alessa T, Dimitri P, Smith C, de Witte L. Reducing negative emotions in children using social robots: systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2021;106(11):1095-101. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-320721

5. Triantafyllidis A, Alexiadis A, Votis K, Tzovaras D. Social robot interventions for child healthcare: A systematic review of the literature. Comput Methods Programs Biomed Update. 2023;3:100108. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpbup.2023.100108

6. Loeffen EAH, Mulder RL, Font-Gonzalez A, Leroy PLJM, Dick BD, Taddio A, et al. Reducing pain and distress related to needle procedures in children with cancer: A clinical practice guideline. Eur J Cancer. 2020;131:53-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.039

7. Hsiao HJ, Chen SH, Jaing TH, Yang CP, Chang TY, Li MY, et al. Psychosocial interventions for reduction of distress in children with leukemia during bone marrow aspiration and lumbar puncture. Pediatr Neonatol. 2019;60(3):278-84. doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2018.07.004

8. Kearney JA, Salley CG, Muriel AC. Standards of Psychosocial Care for Parents of Children With Cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62 Suppl 5:S632-83. doi: 10.1002/pbc.25761

9. Hsu FY, Lee YH, Tsai JL, Lien ASY. Socially Assistive Robots for Pain Management and Emotional Responses in Pediatric Hospital Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e76427. doi: 10.2196/76427

10. Wu RY, Li XH, Li YC, Ren ZH, Yang BX, Liu ZT, et al. The effect of social robot interventions on anxiety in children in clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2025;382:304-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2025.04.102

11. Jiang S, Yang X, Yu X. Digital Health Interventions to Reduce Cancer-Related Fatigue Among Adolescents and Young Adults: Scoping Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2025;13:e68834. doi: 10.2196/68834

12. Cheng L, Duan M, Mao X, Ge Y, Wang Y, Huang H. The effect of digital health technologies on managing symptoms across pediatric cancer continuum: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Sci. 2021;8(1):22-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.10.002

13. Lopez-Rodriguez MM, Fernández-Millan A, Ruiz-Fernández MD, Dobarrio-Sanz I, Fernández-Medina IM. New Technologies to Improve Pain, Anxiety and Depression in Children and Adolescents with Cancer: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3563. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103563

14. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119-26. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

15. Dautenhahn K. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007;362(1480):679-704. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2006.2004

16. Alemi M, Ghanbarzadeh A, Meghdari A, Moghadam LJ. Clinical Application of a Humanoid Robot in Pediatric Cancer Interventions. Int J Soc Robot. 2016;8(5):743-59. doi: 10.1007/s12369-015-0294-y

17. Meghdari A, Shariati A, Alemi M, Vossoughi GR, Eydi A, Ahmadi E, et al. Arash: A social robot buddy to support children with cancer in a hospital environment. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018;232(6):605-18. doi: 10.1177/0954411918777520

18. Colina-Matiz S, Hernández Leal J, Ariza-Vargas JC, Beltrán Higuera OR, Ovalle-Chaparro C, González Suárez NL, et al. Social robotics as an adjuvant during the hospitalization process in pediatric oncology patients. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2024;42(6):811-21. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2024.2335170

19. Jibb LA, Birnie KA, Nathan PC, Beran TN, Hum V, Victor JC, et al. Using the MEDiPORT humanoid robot to reduce procedural pain and distress in children with cancer: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65(9):e27242. doi: 10.1002/pbc.27242

20. Van Bindsbergen KLA, van der Hoek H, van Gorp M, Ligthart MEU, Hindriks KV, Neerincx MA, et al. Interactive Education on Sleep Hygiene with a Social Robot at a Pediatric Oncology Outpatient Clinic: Feasibility, Experiences, and Preliminary Effectiveness. Cancers. 2022;14(15):3792. doi: 10.3390/cancers14153792

21. Lozano-Mosos JS, Hernández Leal J, Colina-Matiz S, Muñoz-Vargas PT. Education by a social robot on nutrition and catheter care in pediatric oncology patients. Support Care Cancer. 2023;31(12):693. doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-08168-6

22. Christiansen HL, Bingen K, Hoag JA, Karst JS, Velázquez-Martin B, Barakat LP. Providing Children and Adolescents Opportunities for Social Interaction as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62 Suppl 5:S724-49. doi: 10.1002/pbc.25774

23. Koh WQ, Felding SA, Budak KB, Toomey E, Casey D. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of social robots for older adults and people with dementia: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):351. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02277-9

24. Liao YJ, Jao YL, Boltz M, Adekeye OT, Berish D, Yuan F, et al. Use of a Humanoid Robot in Supporting Dementia Care: A Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Open Nurs. 2023;9:23779608231179528. doi: 10.1177/23779608231179528

25. Nichol B, McCready J, Erfani G, Comparcini D, Simonetti V, Cicolini G, et al. Exploring the impact of socially assistive robots on health and wellbeing across the lifespan: An umbrella review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2024;153:104730. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104730

26. Sedenberg E, Chuang J, Mulligan D. Designing Commercial Therapeutic Robots for Privacy Preserving Systems and Ethical Research Practices Within the Home. Int J Soc Robot. 2016;8(4):575-87. doi: 10.1007/s12369-016-0362-y