Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40929721›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Health Care Professionals' Experiences Regarding Facilitators of and Barriers to Sustained Use of Social Robot Ivy for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Qualitative Interview Study.

Mark Steins, Claire Huijnen, Gaby Odekerken-Schröder, Dominik Mahr, Kars Mennens, Ramon Daniels, Frank Mathmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Mark SteinsDepartment of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Maastricht Center for Robots, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6148-8255
Claire HuijnenResearch Centre for Assistive Technology in Care, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0078-8139
Gaby Odekerken-SchröderDepartment of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Maastricht Center for Robots, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7722-5839
Dominik MahrDepartment of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Maastricht Center for Robots, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1804-9622
Kars MennensDepartment of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Maastricht Center for Robots, School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2518-5737
Ramon DanielsResearch Centre for Assistive Technology in Care, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2741-6183
Frank MathmannSchool of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, Faculty of Business and Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1446-0262

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLabor shortages in health care pose significant challenges to sustaining high-quality care for people with intellectual disabilities. Social robots show promise in supporting both people with intellectual disabilities and their health care professionals; yet, few are fully developed and embedded in productive care environments. Implementation of such technologies is inherently complex, requiring careful examination of facilitators and barriers influencing sustained use.

objectiveThis research aimed to evaluate the value creation and implementation of social robots for people with intellectual disabilities and health care professionals, examining facilitators of and barriers to sustained use across 6 care organizations.

methodsA qualitative field study was conducted involving 19 cases of robot implementation across 6 care organizations in the Netherlands; each case consisted of people with intellectual disabilities (clients) and the involved health care professionals. The study examined actual robot deployment in daily care practice between April 2023 and October 2023. Semistructured interviews were conducted with health care professionals after 2 months of implementation. Analysis followed a thematic approach guided by the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework and a model for tracing facilitators of and barriers to the adaptive implementation of the robot. Facilitators were classified as key drivers (complex), enablers (complicated), and minor benefits (simple), whereas barriers were categorized as deal-breakers (complex), obstacles (complicated), and minor hurdles (simple). The robots' sustained use (ie, robot use continuance at 2 months after implementation) served as a key indicator of success.

resultsAfter 2 months, robot use continued in 63% (12/19) of cases. For successful cases, the robot created distinct value among both clients (enhanced daily structure, improved emotional well-being through nonjudgmental interactions, and increased independence) and health care professionals (reduced workload through automation, improved quality of client interactions, and reduced emotional burden). Client characteristics (cognitive capabilities and care predictability), health care professional factors (available time and digital competency), contextual conditions (timing and connectivity), and organizational support (training and resources) influenced sustained use. Main implementation barriers included complex or unpredictable care needs, insufficient programming time, and contextual factors affecting care environments.

conclusionsThe findings inform long-term care organizations on the implementation and value of the sustained use of social robots for both people with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers. Social robot Ivy demonstrates potential for supporting care delivery to people with intellectual disabilities when implemented under appropriate conditions. Success requires careful matching of robot capabilities with client needs, sufficient time and support for health care professionals, and stable care environments. Future research should examine longer-term sustainability and integrate direct client feedback.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelIntellectual DisabilityRoboticsAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsQualitative Researchadaptive implementationadoptionassistive technologybarriersfacilitatorsfield studyhealth care innovationimplementationintellectual disability caresocial robotstechnology continuance

Identifiers

PMID40929721
PMCPMC12461163

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.