ReviewFrontiers in robotics and AI2021
A Systematic Review of Human and Robot Personality in Health Care Human-Robot Interaction.
Review in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- HEalthcare Robotics' ONtology (HERON): An Upper Ontology for Communication, Collaboration and Safety in Healthcare Robotics.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Assessment of an Inpatient Robotic Nurse Assistant: A Mixed-Method Study.Journal of medical systems · 2024Observational
- An Exploratory Study of the Potential of Online Counseling for University Students by a Human-Operated Avatar Counselor.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Human-Robot Interaction Using Learning from Demonstrations and a Wearable Glove with Multiple Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Robots in travel clinics: building on tourism's use of technology and robots for infection control during a pandemic.Tropical diseases, travel medicine and vaccines · 2023Review
- Ethics 4.0: Ethical Dilemmas in Healthcare Mediated by Social Robots.International journal of social robotics · 2023Article
- AppraisalCloudPCT: A Computational Model of Emotions for Socially Interactive Robots for Autistic Rehabilitation.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2023Article
- Design and Development of a Scale for Evaluating the Acceptance of Social Robotics for Older People: The Robot Era Inventory.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robots have become vital to the delivery of health care and their personalities are often important to understanding their effectiveness as health care providers. Despite this, there is a lack of a systematic overarching understanding of personality in health care human-robot interaction. This makes it difficult to understand what we know and do not know about the impact of personality in health care human-robot interaction (H-HRI). As a result, our understanding of personality in H-HRI has not kept pace with the deployment of robots in various health care environments. To address this, the authors conducted a literature review that identified 18 studies on personality in H-HRI. This paper expands, refines, and further explicates the systematic review done in a conference proceedings [see: Esterwood (Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 2020, 87-95)]. Review results: 1) highlight major thematic research areas, 2) derive and present major conclusions from the literature, 3) identify gaps in the literature, and 4) offer guidance for future H-HRI researchers. Overall, this paper represents a reflection on the existing literature and provides an important starting point for future research on personality in H-HRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.