Robotics in Nursing: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, health care systems are challenged with the shortage of health care professionals, particularly nurses. The decline in the nursing workforce is primarily attributed to an aging population, increased demand for health care services, and a shortage of qualified nurses. Stressful working conditions have also increased the physical and emotional demands and perceptions of burnout, leading to attrition among nurses. Robotics has the potential to alleviate some of the workforce challenges by augmenting and supporting nurses in their roles; however, the impact of robotics on nurses is an understudied topic, and limited literature exists. OBJECTIVE: We aim to understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to robotics integration in nursing practice. METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist will guide the scoping review. The MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Cochrane Library, and IEEE Xplore electronic bibliographic databases will be searched to retrieve papers. In addition, gray literature sources, including Google Scholar, dissertations, theses, registries, blogs, and relevant organizational websites will be searched. Furthermore, the reference lists of included studies retrieved from the databases and the gray literature will be hand-searched to ensure relevant papers are not missed. In total, 2 reviewers will independently screen retrieve papers at each stage of the screening process and independently extract data from the included studies. A third reviewer will be consulted to help decision-making if conflicts arise. Data analysis will be completed using both descriptive statistics and content analysis. The results will be presented using tabular and narrative formats. RESULTS: The review is expected to describe the current evidence on the integration and impact of robots and robotics into nursing clinical practice, provide insights into the current state and knowledge gaps, identify a direction for future research, and inform policy and practice. The authors expect to begin the data searches in late January 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The robotics industry is evolving rapidly, providing different solutions that promise to revamp health care delivery with possible improvements to nursing practice. This review protocol outlines the steps proposed to systematically investigate this topic and provides an opportunity for more insights from scholars and researchers working in the field. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/50626.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it