ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Interactive robots for health in Europe: Technology readiness and adoption potential.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Review of Elbow Exoskeletons: Classification by Structure, Actuation, and Sensing Technologies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- From complexity to commercial readiness: industry insights on bridging gaps in human-robot interaction and social robot navigation.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- The Potential of Electrospinning to Enable the Realization of Energy-Autonomous Wearable Sensing Systems.ACS nano · 2024Review
- From care practices to speculative vignettes-design considerations for robots in good care.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Social robots are accompanied by high expectations of what they can bring to society and in the healthcare sector. So far, promising assumptions have been presented about how and where social robots are most relevant. We know that the industry has used robots for a long time, but what about social uptake outside industry, specifically, in the healthcare sector? This study discusses what trends are discernible, to better understand the gap between technology readiness and adoption of interactive robots in the welfare and health sectors in Europe. Methods: An assessment of interactive robot applications at the upper levels of the Technology Readiness Level scale is combined with an assessment of adoption potential based on Rogers' theory of diffusion of innovation. Most robot solutions are dedicated to individual rehabilitation or frailty and stress. Fewer solutions are developed for managing welfare services or public healthcare. Results: The results show that while robots are ready from the technological point of view, most of the applications had a low score for demand according to the stakeholders. Discussion: To enhance social uptake, a more initiated discussion, and more studies on the connections between technology readiness and adoption and use are suggested. Applications being available to users does not mean they have an advantage over previous solutions. Acceptance of robots is also heavily dependent on the impact of regulations as part of the welfare and healthcare sectors in Europe.
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.