ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2025
User Acceptance of a Home Robotic Assistant for Individuals With Physical Disabilities: Explorative Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2025. 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.
- Perceptions of simulated artificial intelligence in medical consultations: associations with stress, memory, and perceived credibility.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Digital technology for older adults with functional disabilities at home: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Underground mine rescue robotic systems: insights into human-robot information exchange.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth care is shifting toward 5 proactive approaches: personalized, participatory, preventive, predictive, and precision-focused services (P5 medicine). This patient-centered care leverages technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI)-powered robots, which can personalize and enhance services for users with disabilities. These advancements are crucial given the World Health Organization's projection of a global shortage of up to 10 million health care workers by 2030.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the acceptance of a humanoid assistive robot among users with physical disabilities during (1) AI-powered (using a Wizard of Oz methodology) robotic performance of predefined personalized assistance tasks and (2) operator-controlled robotic performance (simulated distant service).
methodsAn explorative qualitative design was used, involving user testing in a simulated home environment and individual interviews. Directed content analysis was based on the Almere model and the model of domestic social robot acceptance.
resultsNine participants with physical disabilities aged 27 to 78 years engaged in robot interactions. They shared their perceptions across 7 acceptance concepts: hedonic attitudes, utilitarian attitudes, personal norms, social norms, control beliefs, facilitating conditions, and intention to use. Participants valued the robot's usefulness for practical services but not for personal care. They preferred automation but accepted remote control of the robot for some tasks. Privacy concerns were mixed.
conclusionsThis study highlights the complex interplay of functional expectations, technological readiness, and personal and societal norms affecting the acceptance of physically assistive robots. Participants were generally positive about robotic assistance as it increases independence and lessens the need for human caregivers, although they acknowledged some current shortcomings. They were open to trying more home testing if future robots could perform most tasks autonomously. AI-powered robots offer new possibilities for creating more adaptable and personalized assistive technologies, potentially enhancing their effectiveness and viability for individuals with disabilities.
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.