Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32784187›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Role of Assistive Robots in the Care of Older People: Survey Study Among Medical and Nursing Students.

Sylwia Łukasik, Sławomir Tobis, Sylwia Kropińska, Aleksandra Suwalska

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sylwia ŁukasikInstitute of Human Biology and Evolution, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2210-7434
Sławomir TobisOccupational Therapy Unit, Chair of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0764-3258
Sylwia KropińskaGeriatrics Unit, Chair and Department of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-0518-5852
Aleksandra SuwalskaDepartment of Mental Health, Chair of Psychiatry, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-5759-5151
Poznan University of Medical Sciences · PLAdam Mickiewicz University in Poznań · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulations are aging at an alarming rate in many countries around the world. There has been not only a decrease in the number of births and an increase in the percentage of older people, but also an increase in the number of people living alone. There is growing demand for specialist medical care and daily care with the number of people who can act as caregivers reducing. The use of assistive robots can, at least partially, solve these problems.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of future health care professionals (medical and nursing students) regarding the use of assistive robots in the care of older people.

methodsThe study was conducted with a group of 178 students from Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland (110 nursing students and 68 medical students), using the Users' Needs, Requirements, and Abilities Questionnaire.

resultsThe participants of this study believed that assistive robots should, first of all, remind older people to take medication regularly, ensure their safety, monitor their health status and environment, provide cognitive training, and encourage them to maintain physical activity. In the students' opinion, the robot should not be an older person's companion but only act as an assistant. Nursing students had significantly higher scores than medical students in several statements concerning everyday use of robots, including reminding about meals (P=.03), monitoring the environment (P=.001), providing advice about a healthy diet (P=.04), monitoring the intake of food and fluids (P=.02), and automatic "switch on" function (P=.02). Nursing students were more focused on the social functions of robots, including encouraging contact with friends (P=.003) and reducing the sense of loneliness and improving mood (P=.008). Medical students were more aware of privacy issues in the statement concerning the possibility of switching off the robot in specific situations (P=.01).

conclusionsOur study revealed a generally positive attitude of future doctors and nurses toward assistive robots, which can have an impact on their acceptance by older adults. In the future, medical professionals could help their patients to choose the right robots (and necessary functions) that are best suited to their needs. However, this would require expanding the curriculum to include the issues of gerontechnology.

Indexed as

AdultCaregiversFemaleHumansMaleRoboticsStudents, MedicalStudents, NursingSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultacceptanceassistive robotsmedical studentsnursing studentsolder adults

Identifiers

PMID32784187
PMCPMC7450386
OpenAlexW3048651742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.