Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41181522›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2025

An

Ferran Gebellí, Raquel Ros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 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

2 authors.

Ferran GebellíPAL Robotics, Barcelona, Spain.
Raquel RosPAL Robotics, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This paper presents a participatory design approach for developing assistive robots, addressing the critical gap between designing robotic applications and real-world user needs. Traditional design methodologies often fail to capture authentic requirements due to users' limited familiarity with robotic technologies and the disconnection between design activities and actual deployment contexts. Methods: We propose a methodology centred on iterative Results: The resulting autonomous patrolling robot operated continuously across a two-month deployment. The evaluation through questionnaires on usability, usage and understanding of the robotic system, along with open-ended questions revealed diverse user adoption patterns, with five distinct personas emerging: enthusiastic high-adopter, disillusioned high-adopter, unconvinced mid-adopter, satisfied mid-adopter and non-adopter, which are discussed in detail. Discussion: During the final evaluation deployment, user feedback still identified both new needs and practical improvements, as co-design iterations have the potential to continue indefinitely. Moreover, despite some performance issues, the robot's presence seemed to generate a placebo effect on both staff and patients, while it appears that staff's behaviours were also influenced by the regular observation of the researchers. The obtained results prove valuable insights into long-term human-robot interaction dynamics, highlighting the importance of context-based requirements gathering.

Indexed as

assistive robotshealthcare applicationhuman-robot interactionin-situ Co-designin-the-wild studylongitudinal studyparticipatory design

Identifiers

PMID41181522
PMCPMC12572612

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.