Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42318514›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2026

Guide robots' acceptance in organizations: user self-efficacy and robots' organizational value.

Kristel Marmor, Janika Leoste, Mati Heidmets

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Kristel MarmorTallinn University of Technology, IT College, Tallinn, Estonia.
Janika LeosteTallinn University of Technology, IT College, Tallinn, Estonia.
Mati HeidmetsTallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This article explores the self-efficacy of guide robot (GR) users and assesses the value of integrating GRs into organizational workflows. Methods: The study consisted of two stages, both conducted in Estonia. First, we carried out a preliminary quantitative pilot study by applying the newly developed Guide Robot User Self-Efficacy Scale (GRUSES) in controlled and uncontrolled organizational settings. This pilot stage examined users' confidence in using GRs across demographic variables, prior robot experience, and interaction contexts, and generated initial insights for the qualitative stage. In the main stage, we conducted semi-structured interviews with three stakeholder groups: GR end users, organizational administrators, and GR distributors. Results: The preliminary survey indicated that prior robot experience was associated with higher self-efficacy, whereas age and gender differences were not statistically significant in this sample. Users' self-efficacy was lower in uncontrolled real-life use than in controlled guided scenarios, although this difference should be interpreted cautiously because the groups were not randomly assigned. The qualitative interviews, which form the core of the study, identified technical, user-related, and organizational barriers to integrating GRs into everyday workflows. Discussion: Based on these findings, we propose an exploratory three-actor framework linking robot capability, user readiness, and organizational readiness. The article also provides recommendations for guide-robot deployment in service organizations. As the GRUSES instrument remains under development, the survey results are interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating.

Indexed as

emerging technologiesguide robotsself-efficacytechnology acceptancetechnology adoption

Identifiers

PMID42318514
PMCPMC13272404

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.