MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252432746 · doi:10.2196/preprints.10410

Health Care Robotics: Qualitative Exploration of Key Challenges and Future Directions (Preprint)

2018· preprint· en· W4252432746 on OpenAlexaff
Kathrin Cresswell, Sarah Cunningham‐Burley, Aziz Sheikh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoboticsArtificial intelligenceSociotechnical systemHealth careRobotQualitative researchInterdependenceSnowball samplingComputer scienceEngineering ethicsKnowledge managementPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsMedicineSociologyEngineeringSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND The emergence of robotics is transforming industries around the world. Robot technologies are evolving exponentially, particularly as they converge with other functionalities such as artificial intelligence to learn from their environment, from each other, and from humans. OBJECTIVE The goal of the research was to understand the emerging role of robotics in health care and identify existing and likely future challenges to maximize the benefits associated with robotics and related convergent technologies. METHODS We conducted qualitative semistructured one-to-one interviews exploring the role of robotic applications in health care contexts. Using purposive sampling, we identified a diverse range of stakeholders involved in conceiving, procuring, developing, and using robotics in a range of national and international health care settings. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically, supported by NVivo 10 (QSR International) software. Theoretically, this work was informed by the sociotechnical perspective, where social and technical systems are understood as being interdependent. RESULTS We conducted 21 interviews and these accounts suggested that there are significant opportunities for improving the safety, quality, and efficiency of health care through robotics, but our analysis identified 4 major barriers that need to be effectively negotiated to realize these: (1) no clear pull from professionals and patients, (2) appearance of robots and associated expectations and concerns, (3) disruption of the way work is organized and distributed, and (4) new ethical and legal challenges requiring flexible liability and ethical frameworks. CONCLUSIONS Sociotechnical challenges associated with the effective integration of robotic applications in health care settings are likely to be significant, particularly for patient-facing functions. These need to be identified and addressed for effective innovation and adoption.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207