Exploring the needs of children and caregivers to inform design of an artificial intelligence-enhanced social robot in the pediatric emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Objective: Socially assistive robots (SARs) are a promising tool to manage children's pain and distress related to medical procedures, but current options lack autonomous adaptability. The aim of this study was to understand children's and caregivers' perceptions surrounding the use of an artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced SAR to provide personalized procedural support to children during intravenous insertion (IVI) to inform the design of such a system following a user-centric approach. Methods: This study presents a descriptive qualitative needs assessment of children and caregivers. Data were collected via semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups. Participants were recruited from two Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs) between April 2021 and January 2022. Results: Eleven caregivers and 19 children completed 27 individual interviews and one focus group. Three main themes were identified: A. Experience in the clinical setting, B. Acceptance of and concerns surrounding SARs, and C. Features that support child engagement with SARs. Most participants expressed comfort with robot technology, however, concerns were raised about sharing personal information, photographing/videotaping, and the possibility of technical failure. Suggestions for feature enhancements included increasing movement to engage a child's attention and tailoring language to developmental age. To enhance the overall ED experience, participants also identified a role for the SAR in the waiting room. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence-enhanced SARs were perceived by children and caregivers as a promising tool for distraction during IVIs and to enhance the overall ED experience. Insights collected will be used to inform the design of an AI-enhanced SAR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".