Perception and acceptability of social robots in healthcare: ethnographic research based on a qualitative case study

Titolo Rivista SALUTE E SOCIETÀ
Autori/Curatori Sara Canella, Izdor Malkar, Igor Robert Roj, Vojko Flis
Anno di pubblicazione 2024 Fascicolo 2024/2
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 15 P. 88-102 Dimensione file 230 KB
DOI 10.3280/SES2024-002006
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Medical care is changing, driven both by necessity as well as innovation. The European healthcare sector’s digital transformation involves the rapid adoption of advanced technologies such as AI, robotics, autonomous systems, and Big Data. The study “Perception and acceptability of social robots in healthcare: ethnographic research based on a qualitative case study” investigates interaction with and acceptability of social robots in a pilot project based in Maribor Hospital, as a part of the European HosmartAI project. These robots functioned largely to assist patients and as “administrative support” for the nurses and doctors. This study focuses on the interactions of healthcare personnel with robots, including any emotions or fears and barriers that arose. The goal was to understand robot acceptance and challenges from a human-centric and individual perspective, focussing on key stakeholders that both use and develop these robots. All stakeholders are part of HosmartAI Living Labs, which works through collaboration to design and deliver advanced technologies.

Keywords:robot sociali; intelligenza artificiale; assistenza sanitaria; competenze digitali; accettazione della tecnologia; ospedale intelligente.

  1. Riek L. (2012). Wizard of Oz Studies in Hri: A Systematic Review and New Reporting Guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1): 119-36.
  2. Soriano G., Yasuhara Y., Ito H., Matsumoto K., Osaka K., Kai Y., Locsin R., Schoenhofer S., Tanioka T. 2022. Robots and Robotics in Nursing. In Healthcare, 10:1571.
  3. Vichitkraivin P., Naenna T. (2021). Factors of Healthcare Robot Adoption by Medical Staff in Thai Government Hospitals. Health and Technology, 11: 139-51.
  4. Wongpiromsarn T., Damrongchai N., Vatananan-Thcscnvitz R. (2016). Technology Development Roadmap for Medical Robotics in Thailand. 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 3240-3248. DOI: 10.1109/PICMET.2016.780657
  5. Aymerich-Franch L., Ferrer, I. (2021). Socially Assistive Robots Deployment in Healthcare Settings: A Global Perspective. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2110.07404.
  6. Barriball L., While A. (1994). Collecting Data Using a Semi-Structured Interview: A Discussion Paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription, 19(2): 328-35.
  7. Bishop L., Van Maris A, Dogramadzi S, Zook N. (2019). Social Robots: The Influence of Human and Robot Characteristics on Acceptance. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 10(1): 346-58.
  8. Boumans R., Van Meulen F., Hindriks K., Neerincx M., Rikkert M. (2020). A Feasibility Study of a Social Robot Collecting Patient Reported Outcome Measurements from Older Adults. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12: 259-66.
  9. Campbell E., Lassiter L. E. (2014). Doing Ethnography Today: Theories, Methods, Exercises. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  10. Chita-Tegmark M., Ackerman J., Scheutz M. (2019). Effects of Assistive Robot Behavior on Impressions of Patient Psychological Attributes: Vignette-Based Human-Robot Interaction Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(6): e13729. DOI: 10.2196/1372
  11. Chitikena H., Sanfilippo F., Ma S. (2023). Robotics in Search and Rescue (SAR) Operations: An Ethical and Design Perspective Framework for Response Phase. Applied Sciences, 13(3): 1800.
  12. Duffy B. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the Social Robot. Socially Interactive Robots, 42(3): 177-190. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3
  13. Esposito E. (2017). Artificial Communication? The Production of Contingency by Algorithms. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 46(2): 249-265.
  14. Frennert S., Östlund B. (2014). Review: Seven Matters of Concern of Social Robots and Older People. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2): 299-310.
  15. Getson C., Nejat G. (2022). The Adoption of Socially Assistive Robots for Long-Term Care: During COVID-19 and in a Post-Pandemic Society. Healthcare Management Forum, 35: 301-209. DOI: 10.1177/0840470422110640
  16. González-González C.S., Violant-Holz V., Gil-Iranzo R.M. (2021). Social Robots in Hospitals: A Systematic Review. Applied Sciences, 11(13): 5976.
  17. Haltaufderheide J., Lucht A., Strünck C., Vollmann J. (2023). Socially Assistive Devices in Healthcare-a Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence from an Ethical Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(1): 5.
  18. Hassan Z. (2014). The Social Labs Revolution: A New Approach to Solving Our Most Complex Challenges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  19. HosmartAI (2023). -- Site available at: https://www.hosmartai.eu. (07/12/2023).
  20. Hossain M., Leminen S., Westerlund M. (2019). A Systematic Review of Living Lab Literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213: 976-88.
  21. Huang R., Hongxiu H., Suomi R., Chenglong Li, Peltoniemi T. (2023). Intelligent Physical Robots in Health Care: Systematic Literature Review. J Med Internet Res, 25(January): e39786. DOI: 10.2196/39786
  22. Klüber K., Onnasch L. (2022). Appearance Is Not Everything-Preferred Feature Combinations for Care Robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 128: 107128.
  23. Liberman-Pincu E., Parmet Y., Oron-Gilad T. (2023). Judging a Socially Assistive Robot by Its Cover: The Effect of Body Structure, Outline, and Color on Users Perception. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 12(2): 1-26. DOI: 10.1145/3571717
  24. Mahmoudi A, Ulate M, Martin M., van der Roest H. (2022). Methodologies Used to Study the Feasibility, Usability, Efficacy, and Effectiveness of Social Robots for Elderly Adults: Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(8): e37434. DOI: 10.2196/3743
  25. Marazzi A. (2012). Uomini, Cyborg e Robot Umanoidi: Antropologia Delluomo Artificiale. Roma: Carocci editore.
  26. Rico M., Rodríguez-Lera F., Clavero J., Guerrero-Higueras A., Olivera V. (2020). An Acceptance Test for Assistive Robots. Sensors, 20(14): 3912.
  27. Mishra D., Romero G., Pande A., Bhuthegowda B.N., Chaskopoulos D., Shrestha B. (2023). An Exploration of the Pepper Robots Capabilities: Unveiling Its Potential. Applied Sciences, 14(1): 110.
  28. Mlakar I., Šafran V., Hari D., Rojc M., Alankuş G., Luna R., Ariöz U. (2021). Multilingual Conversational Systems to Drive the Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Integration into Clinical Workflows. Symmetry, 13(7): 1187.
  29. Mlakar I., Smrke U., Flis V., Kobilica N., Horvat S., Ilijevec B., Musil B., Plohl N. (2023). Using Structural Equation Modeling to Explore Patients and Healthcare Professionals Expectations and Attitudes Towards Socially Assistive Humanoid Robots in Nursing and Care Routine. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1-20.
  30. Mori M., MacDorman K.F., Kageki N. (2012). The Uncanny Valley [from the Field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2): 98-100.
  31. Myles L., Paradis E., Gropper M., Reeves S., Kitto S. (2014). Applying Ethnography to the Study of Context in Healthcare Quality and Safety. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(2): 99.
  32. Pandey A., Gelin R. (2018). A Mass-Produced Sociable Humanoid Robot: Pepper: The First Machine of Its Kind. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 25(3): 40-48. DOI: 10.1109/MRA.2018.283315
  33. Papadopoulos I., Koulouglioti C., Lazzarino R., Ali S. (2020). Enablers and Barriers to the Implementation of Socially Assistive Humanoid Robots in Health and Social Care: A Systematic Review. BMJ Open, 10(1): e033096.
  34. Ragno L., Borboni A., Vannetti F., Amici C., Cusano N. (2023). Application of Social Robots in Healthcare: Review on Characteristics, Requirements, Technical Solutions. Sensors, 23(15): 6820.

Sara Canella, Izdor Malkar, Igor Robert Roj, Vojko Flis, Perception and acceptability of social robots in healthcare: ethnographic research based on a qualitative case study in "SALUTE E SOCIETÀ" 2/2024, pp 88-102, DOI: 10.3280/SES2024-002006