Cocreative Development of Robotic Interaction Systems for Health Care: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Robotic technologies present challenges to health care professionals and are therefore rarely used. Barriers such as lack of controllability and adaptability and complex control functions affect the human-robot relationship. In addition to educational opportunities, the possibility of individual adaptation can improve the usability and practical implementation of robotics. Previous work has focused on developments from a technology-centered perspective and has included user interests too late in the process. Objective: This study addresses the following research question: What cocreative research approaches are used in the field of nursing robotics to improve the usability, intended use, and goal-directed application of robotic developments for nurses and to support the nursing process? Methods: This scoping review provides an overview of the topic and the research activities taking place within it. Five databases and the reference lists of the identified publications were searched for studies without further restrictions. Studies were included if they developed and evaluated interaction and control platforms for robotic systems in health care in a cocreative way with end users. Results: The search resulted in 419 hits, of which 3 publications were included. All publications were feasibility or user studies that were mainly carried out in the European Union. The 3 interaction and control platforms presented were all prototypes and not commercially available. In addition to those in need of care, all studies also included family carers and health care professionals. Conclusions: Robotic interaction and control platforms in health care are rarely, if ever, developed and evaluated with feasibility or user studies that include prototypes and end users. While the involvement of end users is crucial, this review emphasizes that all stakeholders, including health care professionals, should participate in the development process to ensure a holistic understanding of application needs and a focus on user experiences and practical health care needs. It is emphasized that the active involvement of end users in the development process is critical to effectively meeting the needs of the target group.
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 | 0.016 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".