ArticleBMC health services research2024
Care-receivers with physical disabilities' perceptions on having humanoid assistive robots as assistants: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Usability and Acceptance of a Social Robot in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- Personalized Cognitive Support via Social Robots.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- User Acceptance of a Home Robotic Assistant for Individuals With Physical Disabilities: Explorative Qualitative Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with physical disabilities due to disease or injury face barriers to their daily activities and participation in society. Many depend on formal or informal caregivers for assistance to live independently. However, future healthcare challenges due to demographic changes threaten access to home care and assistants. Assistive technologies, such as robots for physical assistance, can support the independence and autonomy of people with physical disabilities. This study explore Norwegian care-receivers' perceptions of using robot assistance in their homes, including preferences for tasks acceptable or unacceptable for robot assistance and the underlying reasons.
methodPurposive sampling was employed to recruit 18 participants, aged between 18 and 77 years, with differences in physical function including diagnoses such as stroke, spinal cord injury, amputations, and muscular dystrophy. Qualitative data were gathered through four focus group interviews wherein participants watched videos featuring a humanoid assistive robot, EVEr3. The collected data underwent analysis using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThree themes with associated sub-themes were constructed: (a) How a robot could assist in daily life, (b) The robot's appearance and functionality, and (c) Concerns about having a robot as an assistant. The participants welcomed the idea of a future robotic assistant in areas that may contribute to an increased feeling of independence and autonomy.
conclusionA robot assisting in activities of daily living would need to be individually customized to meet the needs of each user in terms of which tasks to assist with, how to assist in these defined tasks, and how it is controlled.
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.