Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34757318›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2021

Views on Using Social Robots in Professional Caregiving: Content Analysis of a Scenario Method Workshop.

Theresa Sophie Busse, Sven Kernebeck, Larissa Nef, Patrick Rebacz, Ilona Kickbusch, Jan Peter Ehlers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Enhancing Nurse-Robot Engagement: Two-Wave Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  6. Heterogeneity of Attitudes toward Robots in Healthcare among the Chinese Public: A Latent Profile Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Theresa Sophie BusseDepartment of Didactics and Educational Research in Healthcare, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1821-749X
Sven KernebeckDepartment of Didactics and Educational Research in Healthcare, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7098-9748
Larissa NefCareum Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0419-9654
Patrick RebaczVisionom, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8782-8593
Ilona KickbuschCareum Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2699-7166
Jan Peter EhlersDepartment of Didactics and Educational Research in Healthcare, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6306-4173

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterest in digital technologies in the health care sector is growing and can be a way to reduce the burden on professional caregivers while helping people to become more independent. Social robots are regarded as a special form of technology that can be usefully applied in professional caregiving with the potential to focus on interpersonal contact. While implementation is progressing slowly, a debate on the concepts and applications of social robots in future care is necessary.

objectiveIn addition to existing studies with a focus on societal attitudes toward social robots, there is a need to understand the views of professional caregivers and patients. This study used desired future scenarios to collate the perspectives of experts and analyze the significance for developing the place of social robots in care.

methodsIn February 2020, an expert workshop was held with 88 participants (health professionals and educators; [PhD] students of medicine, health care, professional care, and technology; patient advocates; software developers; government representatives; and research fellows) from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Using the scenario methodology, the possibilities of analog professional care (Analog Care), fully robotic professional care (Robotic Care), teams of robots and professional caregivers (Deep Care), and professional caregivers supported by robots (Smart Care) were discussed. The scenarios were used as a stimulus for the development of ideas about future professional caregiving. The discussion was evaluated using qualitative content analysis.

resultsThe majority of the experts were in favor of care in which people are supported by technology (Deep Care) and developed similar scenarios with a focus on dignity-centeredness. The discussions then focused on the steps necessary for its implementation, highlighting a strong need for the development of eHealth competence in society, a change in the training of professional caregivers, and cross-sectoral concepts. The experts also saw user acceptance as crucial to the use of robotics. This involves the acceptance of both professional caregivers and care recipients.

conclusionsThe literature review and subsequent workshop revealed how decision-making about the value of social robots depends on personal characteristics related to experience and values. There is therefore a strong need to recognize individual perspectives of care before social robots become an integrated part of care in the future.

Indexed as

RoboticsCaregiversGermanyHealth PersonnelHumansSocial Interactiondigital transformationethicsforecastinghealth care sectorhealth personnelprofessional caregivingroboticssocial robotstechnologytrends

Identifiers

PMID34757318
PMCPMC8663608

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.