Dataset Information

Views on Using Social Robots in Professional Caregiving: Content Analysis of a Scenario Method Workshop.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Interest in digital technologies in the health care sector is growing and can be a way to reduce the burden on professional caregivers while helping people to become more independent. Social robots are regarded as a special form of technology that can be usefully applied in professional caregiving with the potential to focus on interpersonal contact. While implementation is progressing slowly, a debate on the concepts and applications of social robots in future care is necessary.

Objective

In addition to existing studies with a focus on societal attitudes toward social robots, there is a need to understand the views of professional caregivers and patients. This study used desired future scenarios to collate the perspectives of experts and analyze the significance for developing the place of social robots in care.

Methods

In February 2020, an expert workshop was held with 88 participants (health professionals and educators; [PhD] students of medicine, health care, professional care, and technology; patient advocates; software developers; government representatives; and research fellows) from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Using the scenario methodology, the possibilities of analog professional care (Analog Care), fully robotic professional care (Robotic Care), teams of robots and professional caregivers (Deep Care), and professional caregivers supported by robots (Smart Care) were discussed. The scenarios were used as a stimulus for the development of ideas about future professional caregiving. The discussion was evaluated using qualitative content analysis.

Results

The majority of the experts were in favor of care in which people are supported by technology (Deep Care) and developed similar scenarios with a focus on dignity-centeredness. The discussions then focused on the steps necessary for its implementation, highlighting a strong need for the development of eHealth competence in society, a change in the training of professional caregivers, and cross-sectoral concepts. The experts also saw user acceptance as crucial to the use of robotics. This involves the acceptance of both professional caregivers and care recipients.

Conclusions

The literature review and subsequent workshop revealed how decision-making about the value of social robots depends on personal characteristics related to experience and values. There is therefore a strong need to recognize individual perspectives of care before social robots become an integrated part of care in the future.

SUBMITTER: Busse TS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8663608 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Researchers, industry, and practitioners are increasingly interested in the potential of social robots in education for learners on the autism spectrum. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with educators in England to gain their perspectives on the potential use of humanoid robots with autistic pupils, eliciting ideas, and specific examples of potential use. Understanding educator views is essential, because they are key decision-makers for the adoption of robots and would directly facilitate future use with pupils. Educators were provided with several example images (e.g., NAO, KASPAR, Milo), but did not directly interact with robots or receive information on current technical capabilities. The goal was for educators to respond to the general concept of humanoid robots as an educational tool, rather than to focus on the existing uses or behaviour of a particular robot. Thirty-one autism education staff participated, representing a range of special education settings and age groups as well as multiple professional roles (e.g., teachers, teaching assistants, speech, and language therapists). Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts identified four themes: Engagingness of robots, Predictability and consistency, Roles of robots in autism education, and Need for children to interact with people, not robots. Although almost all interviewees were receptive toward using humanoid robots in the classroom, they were not uncritically approving. Rather, they perceived future robot use as likely posing a series of complex cost-benefit trade-offs over time. For example, they felt that a highly motivating, predictable social robot might increase children's readiness to learn in the classroom, but it could also prevent children from engaging fully with other people or activities. Educator views also assumed that skills learned with a robot would generalise, and that robots' predictability is beneficial for autistic children-claims that need further supporting evidence. These interview results offer many points of guidance to the HRI research community about how humanoid robots could meet the specific needs of autistic learners, as well as identifying issues that will need to be resolved for robots to be both acceptable and successfully deployed in special education contexts.