MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402483132 · doi:10.2196/58046

Cocreative Development of Robotic Interaction Systems for Health Care: Scoping Review

2024· article· en· W4402483132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pascal Müller, Patrick Jahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityHealth careAdaptabilityProcess (computing)RoboticsControl (management)Computer scienceHuman–computer interactionRobotEuropean unionKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceProcess managementEngineeringBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207