Embodied robots in rehabilitation-oriented interventions for older adults with disability or cognitive impairment: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Robots are increasingly used in later-life care. However, existing reviews often combine applications such as companionship, telepresence, medication support, monitoring, psychosocial support, traditional AI, and rehabilitation within a single body of evidence. This conceptual overlap makes it difficult to interpret the rehabilitation-specific evidence base. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to map empirical studies on embodied robots used in rehabilitation-oriented interventions for older adults with disability or cognitive impairment and to clarify the operational boundary between rehabilitation and non-rehabilitation robot applications. METHODS: This scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's framework, updated Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance, and PRISMA-ScR reporting principles. Six databases (i.e., PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data) were searched from their inception to May 2026. Original empirical studies in English or Chinese were eligible if they involved embodied robots used for structured physical rehabilitation, cognitive rehabilitation, rehabilitation-oriented cognitive stimulation, or direct functional assistance with rehabilitation-relevant outcomes in older adults with disability or cognitive impairment. Consistent with a scoping review design, no formal risk-of-bias or certainty-of-evidence appraisal was conducted. RESULTS: Eleven studies published between 2019 and 2026 were included. Six of the studies focused on cognitive rehabilitation or rehabilitation-oriented cognitive stimulation and five on physical rehabilitation. Robots served as structured cognitive facilitators, rehabilitation platforms or devices, or wearable/exoskeleton assistive systems. Study designs, comparators, intervention formats, settings, robot roles, and outcome instruments were heterogeneous. Most studies were small, preliminary, or task-specific, with generally limited follow-up. Reporting of intervention parameters and participant flow was inconsistent, and device-specific safety information was rarely distinguishable from general clinical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Applying a Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System-informed rehabilitation boundary refined the evidence map and improved conceptual interpretability. However, the included evidence is insufficient to support comparative effectiveness claims. Therefore, future studies should specify rehabilitation targets, active ingredients, mechanisms of action, intervention parameters, participant flow, follow-up, and device-specific safety profiles and should distinguish rehabilitation value from psychosocial support, companionship, acceptability, or general service delivery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/q5mrn/overview, q5mm, Open Science Framework.