Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804350›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2022

Implementing ethical aspects in the development of a robotic system for nursing care: a qualitative approach.

Svenja Nielsen, Sina Langensiepen, Murielle Madi, Maurice Elissen, Astrid Stephan, Gabriele Meyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Mobile robots for isolation-room hospital settings: A scenario-based preliminary study.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Svenja NielsenInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Sina LangensiepenDepartment of Nursing Science, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Murielle MadiInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Maurice ElissenClinical-Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Astrid StephanDepartment of Nursing Science, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Gabriele MeyerInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Str. 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany. Gabriele.Meyer@uk-halle.de.
RWTH Aachen University · DEMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DEUniversitätsklinikum Aachen · DE

Funding

German Ministry of Education and Research 16SV8440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs robotics in nursing care is still in an early explorative research phase, it is not clear which changes robotic systems will ultimately bring about in the long term. According to the approach of "Responsible Research and Innovation", the research project "PfleKoRo" aims to anticipate and mitigate ethical risks that might be expected when starting to develop a robot. The robot under investigation is intended to be a hands-on support in nursing care in due course. Therefore, the question is which ethical risks and requirements must be considered when developing the robot.

methodsGuided by the British Standard for the design of robotic systems, ethical risks related to the robot's use were identified at the outset (Step 1). This was followed by the definition of the requirements needed to mitigate ethical risks (Step 2). Professional nurses, patients and relatives were involved in focus groups and interviews in Step 1. The transcribed interviews and focus groups were then analysed using content analysis. The available literature and expert guidance were taken into account in both steps. Finally, validation and verification methods were defined (Step 3).

resultsSixteen professional nurses participated in three focus groups. Individual interviews were held with a total of eight patients and relatives. Ethical risks and requirements could be defined in the context of dignity, autonomy, privacy, human relationships and safety in the project. Professional nurses feared most issues relating to safety and that the robot would lead to more workload instead of relief, whereas patients and relatives frequently raised the issue of the staffing ratio. Despite the focus on possible negative consequences, participants also made uncritical or optimistic comments regarding the robot's use in the future.

conclusionFocus groups, individual interviews and existing literature revealed to some extent different ethical issues. Along with identified risks, the results suggest a general open-mindedness of nurses, patients and relatives towards the introduced robot. When investigating the ethical implications of robots for nursing care, one should include multiple perspectives and, in particular, potentially affected individuals.

Indexed as

Ethical analysisFocus groupsHospitalsInterviewNursingNursing homeRoboticsUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID35804350
PMCPMC9263068
OpenAlexW4284898902

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.