Nursing Staff’s Perspectives of Care Robots for Assisted Living Facilities: Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Care robots have been proposed in response to nursing shortages in assisted living facilities (ALFs) and the growing population of older adults. While the use of care robots may improve the general health and well-being of older adults, their introduction changes the work of nursing staff fundamentally, and it has implications for the entire health care system. In developing such technology, it is important to include end users, but so far, the nursing staff's perspectives have largely been ignored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the literature on nursing staff's attitudes, needs, and preferences related to the use of care robots in ALFs, in order to discover gaps in the literature and guide future research. METHODS: This review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 protocol. On May 12, 2023, we searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, the IEEE Xplore Digital Library, and the ACM Digital Library using predetermined search terms. Included publications, written in English, focused on the predevelopment phase, in which information was gathered on nursing staff's attitudes, needs, and preferences regarding care robots for ALFs. Publications were excluded if they did not provide peer-reviewed empirical data. The studies' findings were summarized, coded, and analyzed into major themes using thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. Their quality was assessed using McGill University's Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tools. RESULTS: The final sample included 15 studies. Most of the studies (n=11, 73%) were rated as good quality; however, there was a general lack of reporting on important methodological decisions and sample characteristics. Nursing staff desired care robots that could assist with physically demanding tasks and reduce their workload but had mixed feelings on whether robots could or should assist with social tasks. In addition, nursing staff are concerned about the ethics of care robots, as well as about their safety, accessibility, and operability. The nursing staff's culture, qualification, and role in the facility may influence their perspectives of care robots. The studies lacked theory-driven designs and large sample sizes. Eight (53%) studies mentioned using a participatory design approach, but a lack of established criteria for what constitutes participatory design leads to varying degrees of methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: There was consensus among nursing staff that care robots should serve as nursing assistants to reduce workload. Whether robots could or should assist with social tasks remains a question. Further research is needed to mitigate nursing staff's concerns and understand the socioecological factors that influence their perspectives of care robots and their adoption in ALFs. In addition, theory-driven and large sample size study designs are necessary, as well as work to develop clear criteria for related participatory design research.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".