首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Socially assistive robots in health and social care: Acceptance and cultural factors. Results from an exploratory international online survey
Authors:Irena Papadopoulos  Steve Wright  Christina Koulouglioti  Sheila Ali  Runa Lazzarino  Ángel Martín-García  Cristina Oter-Quintana  Christiana Kouta  Elena Rousou  Katalin Papp  Radka Krepinska  Valerie Tothova  Maria Malliarou  Paraskevi Apostolara  Małgorzata Lesińska-Sawicka  Małgorzata Nagorska  Miroslava Liskova  Line Nortvedt  Lise-Merete Alpers  Sylvia Biglete-Pangilinan  Ma. Florinda Oconer-Rubiano  Wireeporn Chaisetsampun  Nutchanath Wichit  Akhtar-Ebrahimi Ghassemi  Ezzat Jafarjalal  Akile Zorba  Andrea Kuckert-Wöstheinrich  Rabin Malla  Tomiko Toda  Özlem Akman  Candan Öztürk  Teresa Puvimanasinghe  Tahereh Ziaian  Orit Eldar-Regev  Sara Nissim
Affiliation:1. Head, Research Centre for Transcultural Studies in Health, Department of Mental Health and Social Work, School of Health and Education, Middlesex University, London, UK;2. Department of Mental Health and Social Work, Middlesex University, London, UK;3. Research Centre for Transcultural Studies in Health, Middlesex University, Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Worthing, West Sussex, UK;4. Research Centre for Transcultural Studies in Health, Middlesex University, London, UK;5. San Blas Primary Healthcare Centre (Southern Area) of the Gerencia Asistencial de Atención Primaria, Servicio Madrileño de Salud, Madrid, Spain;6. Nursing Department, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain;7. Department of Nursing, School of Health Sciences Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus;8. University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary;9. SZŠ a VOŠZ Havlíčkův Brod (School of Nursing), Havlickuv Brod, Czech Republic;10. Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia České Budějovice, České Budějovice, Czech Republic;11. University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece;12. Faculty of Nursing, Campus Egaleo Park, University of West Attica, Egaleo, Greece;13. State University of Applied Sciences in Pila, Pila, Poland;14. Adjunct Faculty, Institute of Medical Sciences, Medical College of Rzeszow University, Rzeszów, Poland;15. Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Care, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovak Republic;16. Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway;17. VID Specialized University, Oslo, Norway;18. College of Nursing and Midwifery, Bataan Peninsula State University-Main Campus, Bataan, Philippines;19. Bataan Peninsula State University, Bataan, Philippines;20. Faculty of Nursing, Suratthani Rajabhat University, Surat Thani, Thailand;21. Nursing Department, Hartwick College, Oneonta, New York, USA;22. Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Nursing Research Center, Tehran, Iran;23. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Science, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Cyprus;24. Manager Bachelor Programme Nursing, Vorarlberg University of Applied Sciences, Dornbirn, Austria;25. MICD, Nayabato, Kathmandu, Nepal;26. Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing and Rehabilitation, Konan Women's University, Kobe, Japan;27. Faculty of Health Sciences, Nursing Department, Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey;28. Faculty of Nursing, Near East University, Mersin, Turkey;29. University of South Australia, Magill campus, Magill, South Australia, Australia;30. Centre for Workplace Excellence (CWeX), University of South Australia;31. Independent Researcher, Galil, Israel;32. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Abstract:

Aim

This study explored the views of an international sample of registered nurses and midwives working in health and social care concerning socially assistive robots (SARs), and the relationship between dimensions of culture and rejection of the idea that SARs had benefits in these settings.

Methods

An online survey was used to obtain rankings of (among other topics) the extent to which SARs have benefits for health and social care. It also asked for free text responses regarding any concerns about SARs.

Results

Most respondents were overwhelmingly positive about SARs' benefits. A small minority strongly rejected this idea, and qualitative analysis of the objections raised by them revealed three major themes: things might go wrong, depersonalization, and patient-related concerns. However, many participants who were highly accepting of the benefits of SARs expressed similar objections. Cultural dimensions of long-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance feature prominently in technology acceptance research. Therefore, the relationship between the proportion of respondents from each country who felt that SARs had no benefits and each country's ratings on long-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance were also examined. A significant positive correlation was found for long-term orientation, but not for uncertainty avoidance.

Conclusion

Most respondents were positive about the benefits of SARs, and similar concerns about their use were expressed both by those who strongly accepted the idea that they had benefits and those who did not. Some evidence was found to suggest that cultural factors were related to rejecting the idea that SARs had benefits.
Keywords:artificial intelligence  cultural dimensions  socially assistive robots  technology acceptance
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号