Evaluating Social Assistive Robots in Clinical Nursing Care: Mixed Method Pilot Study on Health Care Workers’ Perceptions and Adoption
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The growing demand for older adults care due to aging populations and health care workforce shortages requires innovative solutions. Socially assistive robots (SARs) are increasingly explored for their potential to reduce workload by handling routine tasks. Yet, adoption can be hindered by various health care workers' concerns. Objective: This study examined the perceptions of health care workers toward SARs before and after a pilot use in a clinical nursing care setting. The study focused on SAR usability, emotional appropriateness, and readiness for adoption. Methods: A mixed methods pilot study was conducted at the East Tallinn Central Hospital's Nursing Care Clinic in collaboration with Tallinn University of Technology. The TEMI v3 (Robotemi) robot was used for 2 weeks for visitor guidance, goods delivery, and patrolling tasks. Health care workers filled in pre- and postintervention questionnaires with Likert-scale items and a broad open-ended question. Quantitative data were analyzed for changes in perceived safety, trust, and usability. Qualitative data underwent thematic analysis to understand participants' opinions. Results: Out of 45 involved health care workers, 20 completed the pretest questionnaire, and 5 completed the posttest questionnaire (a 75% attrition). Pretest results show that 17 of 20 (85%) participants had limited previous exposure to SARs and mixed perceptions of their role, with 9 (45%) viewing SARs as machines and 6 (30%) as somewhat human-like. Although 60% believed SARs could become mainstream within 5-10 years, there were concerns about the robot's emotional adequacy and job displacement. Posttest findings showed increased confidence in SARs, with all respondents perceiving them as safe tools. Qualitative results indicate improved trust and readiness to integrate SARs into daily routines, with 4 out of 5 (80%) being willing to advocate for SAR use. Still, participants noted limited impact on facilitating their jobs. Conclusions: The study indicates that short-term collaboration with SARs can enhance health care workers' confidence and their readiness for adoption. However, actual use would need proper emotional adequacy from the robot and aligning its functionalities with specific care needs. The future studies need to examine long-term impacts on care quality and job satisfaction, and also strategies to address generational differences and technophobia among health care staff. Transparent communication and proper training are required to ensure acceptance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».