Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38486244›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2024

Acceptance of a robotic system for nursing care: a cross-sectional survey with professional nurses, care recipients and relatives.

Murielle Madi, Svenja Nielsen, Mona Schweitzer, Maximilian Siebert, Daniel Körner, Sina Langensiepen, Astrid Stephan, Gabriele Meyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Murielle Madi *Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Straße 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany. mmadi@ukaachen.de.
Svenja Nielsen *Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Straße 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany. sprich.nielsen@gmail.com.
Mona SchweitzerInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Magdeburger Straße 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Maximilian SiebertInstitute of Applied Medical Engineering, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Daniel KörnerInstitute of Applied Medical Engineering, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Sina LangensiepenDepartment of Nursing Science, 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 Straße 8, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DERWTH Aachen University · DEUniversitätsklinikum Aachen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe end-users' acceptance is a core concept in the development, implementation and evaluation of new systems like robotic systems in daily nursing practice. So far, studies have shown various findings concerning the acceptance of systems that are intended to assist people with support or care needs. Not much has been reported on the acceptance of robots that provide direct physical assistance to nurses in bedside care. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the acceptance along with ethical implications of the prototype of an assistive robotic arm aiming to support nurses in bedside care, from the perspective of nurses, care recipients and their relatives.

methodsA cross-sectional survey design was applied at an early stage in the technological development of the system. Professional nurses, care recipients and relatives were recruited from a university hospital and a nursing home in Germany. The questionnaire was handed out following either a video or a live demonstration of the lab prototype and a subsequent one-to-one follow-up discussion. Data analysis was performed descriptively.

resultsA total of 67 participants took part in the study. The rejection of specified ethical concerns across all the respondents was 77%. For items related to both perceived usefulness and intention to use, 75% of ratings across all the respondents were positive. In the follow-up discussions, the participants showed interest and openness toward the prototype, although there were varying opinions on aspects such as size, appearance, velocity, and potential impact on workload.

conclusionsRegarding the current state of development, the acceptance among the participants was high, and ethical concerns were relatively minor. Moving forward, it would be beneficial to explore the acceptance in further developmental stages of the system, particularly when the usability is tested.

Indexed as

AcceptanceEthical analysisEvaluationHospitalsNursingNursing homesRoboticsSurveyUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID38486244
PMCPMC10938668
OpenAlexW4392817426

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.