Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robots in healthcare as envisioned by care professionals

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Intelligent Service Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As AI-enabled robots enter the realm of healthcare and caregiving, it is important to consider how they will address the dimensions of care and how they will interact not just with the direct receivers of assistance, but also with those who provide it (e.g., caregivers, healthcare providers, etc.). Caregiving in its best form addresses challenges in a multitude of dimensions of a person’s life: from physical to social-emotional and sometimes even existential dimensions (such as issues surrounding life and death). In this study, we use semi-structured qualitative interviews administered to healthcare professionals with multidisciplinary backgrounds (physicians, public health professionals, social workers, and chaplains) to understand their expectations regarding the possible roles robots may play in the healthcare ecosystem in the future. We found that participants drew inspiration in their mental models of robots from both works of science fiction but also from existing commercial robots. Participants envisioned roles for robots in the full spectrum of care, from physical to social-emotional and even existential-spiritual dimensions, but also pointed out numerous limitations that robots have in being able to provide comprehensive humanistic care. While no dimension of care was deemed as exclusively the realm of humans, participants stressed the importance of caregiving humans as the primary providers of comprehensive care, with robots assisting with more narrowly focused tasks. Throughout the paper, we point out the encouraging confluence of ideas between the expectations of healthcare providers and research trends in the human–robot interaction (HRI) literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

References

  1. Laura F, Marleen DM, Isabelle F, Raffaele L, Alessandra V, Grazia D, Michael T, Daniele S, Francesco G, Antonio G et al (2019) Assistive robots to improve the independent living of older persons: results from a needs study. Disabil Rehabilit Assist Technol 102:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  2. Martinez-Martin Ester, Escalona Felix, Cazorla Miguel (2020) Socially assistive robots for older adults and people with autism: an overview. Electronics 9(2):367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Maria K, Fotios L, Akilesh R, Christos S, Harish RN, Kodur Krishna C, Ashwin Ramesh B, Joanne M, Fillia M (2021) A survey of robots in healthcare. Technologies 9(1):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fischinger David, Einramhof Peter, Papoutsakis Konstantinos, Wohlkinger Walter, Mayer Peter, Panek Paul, Hofmann Stefan, Koertner Tobias, Weiss Astrid, Argyros Antonis et al (2016) Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: first prototype and lessons learned. Robot Autonom Syst 75:60–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Noel M, Abbas S, Elhajj IH, Daniel A (2018) Robotics in nursing: a scoping review. J Nurs Schol 50(6):590–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moez G, Ines G, Samir H (2020) Uvc disinfection robot. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dean Conte, Spencer Leamy, and Tomonari Furukawa. Design and map-based teleoperation of a robot for disinfection of covid-19 in complex indoor environments. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), pages 276–282. IEEE, 2020

  8. Nancy SJ (2020) You’ve got a friend in me: sociable robots for older adults in an age of global pandemics. Ethics Inform Technol 23:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  9. Robin RM, Vignesh BMG, and Justin A (2020) Applications of robots for covid-19 response. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.06976,

  10. Berton HK, John CC, Susan G (1977) Social support and health. Medical Care 15(5):47–58

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schwarzer Ralf, Leppin Anja (1991) Social support and health: a theoretical and empirical overview. J Soc Pers Relationsh 8(1):99–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pamela SH, Janni M (1988) Hopefulness and the self-sustaining process in adolescents with cancer. Nursing Research,

  13. Mok E, Lau K-P, Lam W-M, Chan L-N, Ng J, Chan K-S (2010) Health-care professionals’ perspective on hope in the palliative care setting. J Palliat Med 13(7):877–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maria LC, Michela P, Anna M, Gabriella F, Laura I, Maria TC, Daniela M, Laura R, Maria M, Maria GDM (2020) Finding meaning in life: an exploration on the experiences with dependence on care of patients with advanced cancer and nurses caring for them. Support Care Cancer 28(9):4493–4499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Julienne EB, Margaret EK, Shelley ET, John LF (1998) Cognitive processing, discovery of meaning, cd4 decline, and aids-related mortality among bereaved hiv-seropositive men. J Consult Clin Psychol 66(6):979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lefevor GT, Paiz JY, Milburn HE, Sheffield PE, Tamez-Guerrero NA (2021) Religiousness and help seeking: individual, congregational, and clergy factors. Counsell Psychol Quart 35:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ranak T, Kristine B, Erin DB, Evercita E, Steven BZ, Karin N, Ann-Marie R, Jackie GS, John DP (2014) Characteristics and well-being of informal caregivers: Results from a nationally-representative us survey. Chronic Illness 10(3):167–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inform Technol 14(1):27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Davies B (2000) A review of robotics in surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 214(1):129–140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sandra B, Gert Jan G, Luc DW (2015) Overview and categorization of robots supporting independent living of elderly people: what activities do they support and how far have they developed. AssistTechnol 27(2):88–100

    Google Scholar 

  21. Van Wynsberghe A (2013) Designing robots for care: care centered value-sensitive design. Sci Eng Ethics 19(2):407–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marcus M, Michael B, Katja K, Sascha F, Georg A, Birgit G, Gernot K, Lucia P, David F, Renxi Q (2012) User-centered design of a dynamic-autonomy remote interaction concept for manipulation-capable robots to assist elderly people in the home. J Human-Robot Int 1(1):96–118

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brian S, Marynel V (2020) The potential of socially assistive robots during infectious disease outbreaks. Sci Robot 5(44):9014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. David F-S, Maja JM (2005) Defining socially assistive robotics. Int Conf Rehabilit Robot 2005:465–468

    Google Scholar 

  25. Selma Šabanović, Casey C Bennett, Wan-Ling Chang, and Lesa Huber. Paro robot affects diverse interaction modalities in group sensory therapy for older adults with dementia. In 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2013

  26. Rabbitt Sarah M, Kazdin Alan E, Scassellati Brian (2015) Applications and recommendations for expanded use integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions. Clin psychol Rev 35:35–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanika M, Alejandro EP, Hee RL, and Laurel DR (2019) Robots for joy, robots for sorrow: community based robot design for dementia caregivers. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 458–467

  28. Jennifer AP (2010) Lifting the burden of women’s care work: should robots replace the human touch? Hypatia 25(1):100–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sparrow Robert, Sparrow Linda (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach 16(2):141–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simon Coghlan. Robots and the possibility of humanistic care. International Journal of Social Robotics, pages 1–14, 2021

  31. Alexis EB, Katherine JK (2019) Softness, warmth, and responsiveness improve robot hugs. Int J Soc Robot 11(1):49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jesin J, Catherine IW, and Bruce M (2018) Artificial empathy in social robots: An analysis of emotions in speech. In 2018 27th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pages 632–637

  33. Aike CH, Nicole CK (2019) Great expectations? Relation of previous experiences with social robots in real life or in the media and expectancies based on qualitative and quantitative assessment. Front Psychol 10:939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Justin W, Eun HJ, Sundar SS, Ariel CJ (2015) Mental models of robots among senior citizens: An interview study of interaction expectations and design implications. Interact Stud 16(1):68–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Céline R, Francesco M, and Roland S (2008) What do people expect from robots? In 2008 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pages 3816–3821

  36. Teresa KO, Elizabeth S, Everlyne K, Dhaval P, Stefan O, Jessica H, Andrea G P, Michael K P-O, and Timothy B (2020) Community-based cultural tailoring of virtual agents. In proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on intelligent virtual agents, pages 1–8,

  37. Andrew BW, Rosa MW, Ronald EM, and Matthias M (2019) Aida: a social co-robot to uplift workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pages 584–585

  38. Anselm Strauss and Juliet M Corbin. Grounded theory in practice. Sage, 1997

  39. Meia C-T, Theresa L, Nicholas R, and Matthias S (2021) Can you trust your trust measure? In proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp 92–100

  40. Sonya SK (2014) The impact of the robot appearance types on social interaction with a robot and service evaluation of a robot. Arch Des Res 27(2):81–93

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jennifer G, Sara K, and Aaron P(2003) Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation. In The 12th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003., pp55–60

  42. Kerstin SH, Katsumi W, Mari V, Chad CT, Victor F (2018) Ffab-the form function attribution bias in human-robot interaction. IEEE Trans Cognit Develop Syst 10(4):843–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Minae K, Malte FJ, and Ross AK (2016) Human expectations of social robots. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pages 463–464

  44. Law Theresa, Chita-Tegmark Meia, Scheutz Matthias (2021) The interplay between emotional intelligence, trust, and gender in human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 13(2):297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meia C-T, Monika L, and Matthias S (2019) Gender effects in perceptions of robots and humans with varying emotional intelligence. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pages 230–238

  46. Megumi M and Shohei K (2010) Motion rendering system for emotion expression of human form robots based on laban movement analysis. In 19Th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication, pages 324–329

  47. Elizabeth Phillips, Daniel Ullman, Maartje MA de Graaf, and Bertram F Malle. What does a robot look like?: a multi-site examination of user expectations about robot appearance. In: proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, volume 61, pages 1215–1219. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2017

  48. Banks Jaime (2020) Optimus primed: media cultivation of robot mental models and social judgments. Front Robot AI 7:62

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with aibo on their attitude towards robots. Ai Soc 21(1–2):217–230

    Google Scholar 

  50. Shahar A (2019) Exploring artificial intelligence futures. J AI Humanit. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM,35812:1440

  51. Sarah K, Toni DF, Pallavi D, and John RP (2010) Fictional robots as a data source in hri research: Exploring the link between science fiction and interactional expectations. In 19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication, pp 458–463

  52. Złotowski Jakub, Khalil Ashraf, Abdallah Salam (2020) One robot doesn’t fit all: aligning social robot appearance and job suitability from a middle eastern perspective. AI Soc 35(2):485–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Shyam SS, Waddell TF, Jung EH (2016) The hollywood robot syndrome media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 343–350

  54. Wendell W, Colin A (2008) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 10

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. IEEE Robot Autom Magaz 18(1):32–38

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. Yasir T, Umer R, Shoko D, and Justin D (2014) Perception of humanoid social mediator in two-person dialogs. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, pp 300–301,

  57. Katelyn NGL, Eric SK, Ying C, Matthew FW, Everett LW Jr, Tyler JV (2020) The role of hope in subsequent health and well-being for older adults: an outcome-wide longitudinal approach. Global Epidemiol 2:100018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Andreas Huber, Astrid Weiss, and Marjo Rauhala. The ethical risk of attachment how to identify, investigate and predict potential ethical risks in the development of social companion robots. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pages 367–374. IEEE, 2016

  59. Yugo H, Kosuke W, Shigen S, and Yukoh K (2019) Using decision support systems for juries in court: comparing the use of real and cg robots. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pages 556–557. IEEE,

  60. Mary LC, Lois H (1997) Improving eating behaviors in dementia using behavioral strategies. Clinical Nurs Res 6(3):275–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tom W, Priscilla B, Nathaniel P, and Matthias S(2014) Is robot telepathy acceptable? investigating effects of nonverbal robot-robot communication on human-robot interaction. In The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pages 886–891

  62. Molly FS (2001) Principles of universal design. Universal design handbook

  63. Van Ryan P, Amber VK, Jacqueline EM, Dilip VJ, Colin D, Laurel DR, Elizabeth WT (2020) Home-based cognitively assistive robots: maximizing cognitive functioning and maintaining independence in older adults without dementia. Clin Intervent Ag 15:1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Fiorini Laura, De Mul Marleen, Fabbricotti Isabelle, Limosani Raffaele, Vitanza Alessandra, D’Onofrio Grazia, Tsui Michael, Sancarlo Daniele, Giuliani Francesco, Greco Antonio et al (2021) Assistive robots to improve the independent living of older persons: results from a needs study. Disab Rehabil Assist Technol 16(1):92–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. The Whoqol Group (1998) The world health organization quality of life assessment (whoqol): development and general psychometric properties. Social science & medicine 46(12):1569–1585

  66. Janine LW, Annette L, Nancy G, Jeanne R, Ruth ESA (2012) The meaning of aging in place to older people. The Gerontol 52(3):357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Chita TM, Scheutz M (2021) Assistive robots for the social management of health: a framework for robot design and human-robot interaction research. Int J Soc Robot 13(2):197–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Elizabeth SK, Lauren DB, Emily PB, Dan L, Frederick S, Rhea P, Brian S (2013) Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. J Aut Develop Disord 43(5):1038–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Fjóla Dögg H, Ross GM, Mark O, Ann P, Sue O (2014) A standalone internet cognitive behavior therapy treatment for social anxiety in adults who stutter: Cbtpsych. J Fluency Disord 41:47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wirtz J (2019) Cost-effective service excellence in healthcare. AMS Rev 9(1):98–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Jeremy AF, Toni O, Michael E, Giuseppe B, Ethan F, Toivo H, Luke M, and Rich W (2020) Tactile telerobots for dull, dirty, dangerous, and inaccessible tasks. In 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 11305–11310

  72. Gidwani R, Nguyen C, Kofoed A, Carragee C, Rydel T, Nelligan I, Sattler A, Mahoney M, Lin S (2017) Impact of scribes on physician satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and charting efficiency: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Family Med 15(5):427–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. C Guest, SY Dewhirst, DJ Allen, S Aziz, O Baerenbold, and J Bradley. Using trained dogs and organic semi-conducting sensors to identify asymptomatic and mild sars-cov-2 infections, 2021

  74. Matthias S (2011) The inherent dangers of unidirectional emotional bonds between humans and social robots. Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics, page 205,

  75. Singer Clifford (2018) Health effects of social isolation and loneliness. J. Aging Life Care 28:4–8

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sharkey N, Sharkey A (2010) The crying shame of robot nannies: an ethical appraisal. Interact Studies 11(2):161–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Marco Carradore (2022) People’s attitudes towards the use of robots in the social services: a multilevel analysis using eurobarometer data. Int J Soc Robot 14(3):845–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Song Won-Kyung, Kim Jongbae (2012) Novel assistive robot for self-feeding. Robotic Systems-Applications, Control and Programming, pp 43–60

  79. Hung Lillian, Liu Cindy, Woldum Evan, Au-Yeung Andy, Berndt Annette, Wallsworth Christine, Horne Neil, Gregorio Mario, Mann Jim, Chaudhury Habib (2019) The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot paro in care settings: a scoping review. BMC Geriat 19:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Löffler D, Hurtienne J, Nord I (2021) Blessing robot blessu2: a discursive design study to understand the implications of social robots in religious contexts. Int J Soc Robot 13:569–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Law Theresa, Chita-Tegmark Meia, Rabb Nicholas, Scheutz Matthias (2022) Examining attachment to robots: benefits, challenges, and alternatives. ACM Trans Human-Robot Inter (THRI) 11(4):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ahmed AM, Jordan A, Mohammed AQS, El Ghita K, Phillip B, Marcela PV (2022) Robots in healthcare: a scoping review. Curr Robot Rep 3(4):271–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Jean-Christophe G, Daniel M, Nuno A, and Nuno P (2007) Attitudes towards social robots: The role of gender, belief in human nature uniqueness, religiousness and interest in science fiction. In Proceedings of II international congress on interdisciplinarity in social and human sciences, volume 11, pp 509

  84. Júlia Pareto B, Begoña Román M, Carme Torras G (2021) The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: a critical literature review. Technol Soc 67:101726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Jennifer M O, Victoria A V, Howard H et al (2014) An aging nation: the older population in the united states

  86. Wan H, Daniel G, Paul RK, et al (2016) An aging world: 2015

  87. Persson M, Redmalm D, Iversen C (2022) Caregivers’ use of robots and their effect on work environment-a scoping review. J Technol Human Serv 40(3):251–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

    Fran Soljacic

  2. Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

    Theresa Law , Meia Chita-Tegmark & Matthias Scheutz

Authors
  1. Fran Soljacic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theresa Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meia Chita-Tegmark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Scheutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fran Soljacic.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soljacic, F., Law , T., Chita-Tegmark, M. et al. Robots in healthcare as envisioned by care professionals. Intel Serv Robotics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-024-00523-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-024-00523-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation