Assessing Visitor Expectations of AI Nursing Robots in Hospital Settings: Cross-Sectional Study Using the Kano Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Globally, the rates at which the aging population and the prevalence of chronic diseases are increasing are substantial. With declining birth rates and a growing percentage of older individuals, the demand for nursing staff is steadily rising. However, the shortage of nursing personnel has been a long-standing issue. In recent years, numerous researchers have advocated for the implementation of nursing robots as a substitute for traditional human labor. Objective: This study analyzes hospital visitors' attitudes and priorities regarding the functional areas of artificial intelligence (AI) nursing robots based on the Kano model. Building on this analysis, recommendations are provided for the functional optimization of AI nursing robots, aiming to facilitate their adoption in the nursing field. Methods: Using a random sampling method, 457 hospital visitors were surveyed between December 2023 and March 2024 to compare the differences in demand for AI nursing robot functionalities among the visitors. Results: A comparative analysis of the Kano attribute quadrant diagrams showed that visitors seeking hospitalization prioritized functional aspects that enhance medical activities. In contrast, visitors attending outpatient examinations focused more on functional points that assist in medical treatment. Additionally, visitors whose purpose was companionship and care emphasized functional aspects that offer psychological and life support to patients. Conclusions: AI nursing robots serve various functional areas and cater to diverse audience groups. In the future, it is essential to thoroughly consider users' functional needs and implement targeted functional developments to maximize the effectiveness of AI nursing robots.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".