This is a repository copy of Socially assistive robots as mental health interventions for children : a scoping review.

Socially assistive robots have the potential to improve aged care by providing assistance through social interaction. While some evidence suggests a positive impact of social robots on measures of well-being, the adoption of robotic technology remains slow. One approach to improve technology adoption is involving all stakeholders in the process of technology development using co-creation methods. To capture relevant stake holders' priorities and perceptions on the ethics of robotic companions, we conducted an interactive co-creation workshop at the 2019 Geriatric Services Conference in Vancouver, BC. The participants were presented with different portrayals of robotic companions in popular culture and answered questions about perceptions, expectations, and ethical concerns about the implementation of robotic technology. Our results reveal that the most pressing ethical concerns with robotic technology, such as issues related to privacy, are critical potential barriers to technology adoption. We also found that most participants agree on the types of tasks that robots should help with, such as domestic chores, communication, and medication reminders. Activities that robots should not help with, according to the stakeholders, included bathing, toileting, and managing finances. The perspectives that were captured contribute to a preliminary outline of the areas of importance for geriatric care stake holders in the process of ethical technology design and development.

Genetic testing plays an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and potential treatment of inherited and rare conditions, such as aniridia—a disease that leads to abnormal eye development, as well as in health research on these conditions. As genetic testing is increasingly sought for accurate and early diagnosis of rare genetic disorders and in the context of direct‐to‐consumer genomics, it is critical to examine the public‐facing information about access to these services and reimbursement policies. We conducted a targeted policy and public‐facing resource search. Our analysis of resources available for the patient community revealed that there is very little practical guidance available about access and reimbursement for genetic testing for rare diseases. Greater clarity in public‐facing resources about genetic testing would be beneficial to the patient community as it would promote informed choices about the procedure, mitigate potential harms associated with lack of information and enable patient engagement in their own health care.

No abstract

No abstract