Robotik in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Hoffnungen, Befürchtungen und Akzeptanz aus Sicht der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer

Becker, Heidrun

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-22698-5_13

Cited by 24 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In health and social care, different stakeholders with very different requirements may interact with robotic systems. 50 To address these different perspectives, a detailed, comprehensive and tailored needs assessment must be carried out, which might ensure meaningful implementation. The need for such assessment is effectively paraphrased in guidelines for user integration in ambient assisted living projects: 'Determining actual user needs instead of merely guessing or generalising can make the difference between a real innovation for users or simply an interesting technical development for the shelf'.…”

Section: Facilitatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRobots in healthcare are gaining increasing attention; however, their implementation is challenging due to the complexity of both interventions themselves and the contexts in which they are implemented. The objective of this integrative review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic systems in nursing.MethodsArticles published from 2002 to 2019 reporting on projects to implement robotic devices in nursing care were searched on Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL and databases on funded research projects (Community Research and Development Information Services and Technische Informationsbibliothek) and in journals for robotic research in November 2017 and July 2019 for an update. No restrictions regarding study designs were imposed. All included articles underwent quality assessments with design-specific critical appraisal tools. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework.ResultsAfter removing all duplicates, the search revealed 11 204 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis. The majority of the studies dealt with the implementation of robots designed to support individuals, either living at home or in nursing homes (n=11). The studies were conducted in Europe, the USA and New Zealand and were carried out in nursing homes, individual living environments, hospital units and laboratories. The quality of reporting and quality of evidence were low in most studies. The most frequently reported barriers were in socioeconomic and ethical domains and were within the implementation outcomes domain. The most frequently reported facilitators were related to the sociocultural context, implementation process and implementation strategies.DiscussionThis review identified barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic devices in nursing within different dimensions. The results serve as a basis for the development of suitable implementation strategies to reduce potential barriers and promote the integration of elements to facilitate implementation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018073486.

show abstract

Section: Facilitatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasing patient safety has also been suggested as a potential benefit of robotics in health care [1,3]. Earlier evidence suggests robotics in particular as a promising opportunity to increase the mobility and independence of patients [4]. For older people especially, it has been suggested that robots may function as "social facilitators" by stimulating interaction with other people [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing ethical aspects in the development of a robotic system for nursing care: a qualitative approach

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As robotics in nursing care is still in an early explorative research phase, it is not clear which changes robotic systems will ultimately bring about in the long term. According to the approach of “Responsible Research and Innovation”, the research project “PfleKoRo” aims to anticipate and mitigate ethical risks that might be expected when starting to develop a robot. The robot under investigation is intended to be a hands-on support in nursing care in due course. Therefore, the question is which ethical risks and requirements must be considered when developing the robot. Methods Guided by the British Standard for the design of robotic systems, ethical risks related to the robot’s use were identified at the outset (Step 1). This was followed by the definition of the requirements needed to mitigate ethical risks (Step 2). Professional nurses, patients and relatives were involved in focus groups and interviews in Step 1. The transcribed interviews and focus groups were then analysed using content analysis. The available literature and expert guidance were taken into account in both steps. Finally, validation and verification methods were defined (Step 3). Results Sixteen professional nurses participated in three focus groups. Individual interviews were held with a total of eight patients and relatives. Ethical risks and requirements could be defined in the context of dignity, autonomy, privacy, human relationships and safety in the project. Professional nurses feared most issues relating to safety and that the robot would lead to more workload instead of relief, whereas patients and relatives frequently raised the issue of the staffing ratio. Despite the focus on possible negative consequences, participants also made uncritical or optimistic comments regarding the robot’s use in the future. Conclusion Focus groups, individual interviews and existing literature revealed to some extent different ethical issues. Along with identified risks, the results suggest a general open-mindedness of nurses, patients and relatives towards the introduced robot. When investigating the ethical implications of robots for nursing care, one should include multiple perspectives and, in particular, potentially affected individuals.

show abstract

“…The medium rating for accessibility of the system in this study (particularly evident in relation to the financial accessibility subscale) is in line with the results of other studies. Becker et al have also emphasized the concern of older adults that due to the unclear financing possibilities of robotics for home use, they are uncertain about the financial feasibility of such a system [1]. Especially older adults with a lower socioeconomic background show a higher prevalence of need for care, while having fewer resources for financing expensive assistive technology [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and intention to use the interactive robotic kitchen system AuRorA in older adults

Perotti

Strutz

2022

Z Gerontol Geriat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The number of older adults in need of care and living at home is increasing in Europe. At the same time, the number of professional caregivers is decreasing. This development reinforces the need for assistive technology to support care recipients in their own homes and promote their independence. One of the main challenges of independent living is the preparation of food. Interactive robots could assist older adults with difficulties performing physically demanding tasks. Within the project AuRorA (full German project title: Wiederverwendbare, interaktive Verhalten für proaktive Roboter im Smart Home), an interactive voice-controlled robot arm was developed as an assistance system in the kitchen. Objective The aim of the study was to assess how older adults evaluate the AuRorA system and to collect data on actual willingness to use the technology. Older adults were asked to evaluate the system in terms of usefulness, usability, accessibility and intention to use. Material and methods Due to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the older adults evaluated the system via an online survey. The validated questionnaire Technology Usage Inventory (short: TUI) was used in conjunction with self-developed questionnaires to collect data on study population characteristics. Results A total of 106 participants were included in the analysis. The acceptance, usability and usefulness of the system were rated as medium, while the intention to use was rated as low. A significant strong correlation was found between the TUI subscales intention to use and usefulness. Conclusion It can be assumed that the actual need of the individual participant for such a robotic assistive system had an influence on the evaluation of the system. The perceived usefulness may have been a crucial influence on the intention to use and the overall assessment of the system.

show abstract

Robotik in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Hoffnungen, Befürchtungen und Akzeptanz aus Sicht der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer

Cited by 24 publications

References 27 publications

Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review

Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review

Implementing ethical aspects in the development of a robotic system for nursing care: a qualitative approach

Evaluation and intention to use the interactive robotic kitchen system AuRorA in older adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About