Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 80 references

Human-Centered Reflections on Care Robots: A Comparative Study of Caregiver Perspectives

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Caregivers evaluate care robots task by task: they welcome supply delivery, vital-sign monitoring, and mobility support more than robots that lift patients into bed, and the same ordering appears in the United States, Mexico, and Chile.

desk verdict Decent empirical study, but the three-country framing overstates the analysis: the data really compare English vs. Spanish groups. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02411 v1 pith:WYRAZS22 submitted 2026-08-03 cs.RO cs.AIcs.ETcs.LG

Laura Londoño , Klaus Baumann , Abhinav Valada , Markus Langer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.ETcs.LG
keywords carerobotstechnologyacceptancehuman-robotinteractioncross-culturalcomparisonrobotethicscaregiverperspectivestask-dependenthealthcare
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Caregivers accept care robots along a task-based gradient rather than as one technology: robots that deliver supplies, monitor vital signs, or assist with walking are rated more positively than robots that lift patients into bed, and this ordering is similar across caregivers in the United States, Mexico, and Chile. Across all three countries, attitudes are generally positive, but behavioral intention—whether caregivers would actually use these robots—is lower among the Mexican and Chilean respondents, who tie that hesitation to cost, unequal access, and local infrastructure. Ethical benefits and risks such as workload relief, safety, autonomy, human oversight, job displacement, and privacy are largely shared across countries, yet they are interpreted in context-specific ways: the US group emphasizes regulation, algorithmic bias, and data-privacy law, while the Latin American group emphasizes inequality, accessibility, and the relational realities of care. The paper argues that responsible design and implementation of care robots should therefore be assessed function by function and context by context, not treated as a single kind of technology.

What carries the argument

The design lets each caregiver serve as their own comparison across the four robot types (delivering supplies, helping patients into bed, monitoring vital signs, assisting with mobility), with language group as the between-subjects factor. Quantitative ratings came from standardized technology-acceptance scales covering usefulness, attitudes, self-efficacy, behavioral intention, ethical judgments, and an overall rating; open-ended questions captured ethical reasoning. The qualitative side is the explanatory engine: a literature-informed ethical framework combining care ethics, the capability approach, and consequentialism structured the content analysis, showing how the same robot can be rea

What would settle it

A replication that recruits verified nurses and aides through hospital networks, samples Mexico and Chile separately, and assesses the same four robot types in real or high-fidelity clinical use: if patient-lifting robots are rated as positively as supply-delivery robots, or if the two Latin American samples diverge sharply, the paper's task-dependence and pooled-context claims would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that caregivers accept care robots along a task gradient rather than as a single technology: supply delivery, vital-sign monitoring, and mobility assistance are evaluated more favorably than robots that lift patients into bed, and this ordering is consistent across the US, Mexican, and Chilean samples. It further claims that ethical concerns are broadly shared across countries but interpreted through local institutions—fairness becomes algorithmic bias in the US and economic access in Latin America, while privacy becomes regulatory compliance in the US and a less legally anchored concern elsewhere. The paper interprets this as evidence that acceptance depends on

Load-bearing premise

The comparative conclusions rest on the assumption that online volunteers who self-report healthcare experience are a valid stand-in for working caregivers and that Mexico and Chile can be pooled as one Spanish-language Latin American context; if either assumption fails, the cross-country claims weaken, though the task-dependence gradient could still hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If acceptance is task-dependent, 'care robots' are not one technology: evaluation, regulation, and pilot design would have to be scoped to specific functions rather than to robots in general.
  • Robots for supply delivery, vital-sign monitoring, and mobility support would meet less resistance than patient-lifting robots, which carry the highest perceived physical risk.
  • The lower behavioral intention in the Mexican and Chilean samples implies that closing the adoption gap there is less about changing attitudes and more about affordability, access, and institutional readiness.
  • The shared skepticism about psychiatric and pediatric settings implies that deployment in those contexts would need extra risk assessment, patient education, and human-oversight safeguards.
  • Because participants used the same value both for and against robots, implementation would require training, transparency, and clear accountability structures rather than assuming acceptance follows from technical utility.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test the mechanism behind the behavioral-intention gap; a mediation analysis measuring perceived cost, infrastructure, and institutional support could determine whether those factors, rather than cultural values, explain why Mexican and Chilean caregivers are less inclined to adopt.
  • The authors discuss ambivalence around vital-sign monitoring in terms of de-skilling, but they do not draw the design conclusion: framing monitoring robots as augmenting clinical judgment rather than replacing it may be a testable route to higher acceptance.
  • Pooling Mexico and Chile into one Spanish-language group may conceal within-region variation; keeping the two national samples separate in a follow-up, or adding countries with different healthcare funding models, would test whether 'Latin American context' is a coherent construct.
  • Because all ratings came from videos of hypothetical scenarios, the task-gradient is an attitude measure; a real or high-fidelity clinical trial with the same four robots would test whether acceptance holds when caregivers actually work with the machines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a mixed-methods study of 298 Prolific-recruited participants who self-report healthcare experience (US n=152; Mexico and Chile pooled n=146). Participants watched videos of four care-robot categories — delivering supplies, helping patients into bed, monitoring vital signs, and assisting with mobility — and completed adapted UTAUT/CAN scales, an overall rating, and open-ended ethical questions. Quantitative analyses are RM-ANOVAs with robot type as a within-subject factor and language group (EN vs. SP) as the between-subject factor; qualitative responses are coded with a literature-informed ethical framework combining care ethics, the capability approach, and consequentialism. The main reported findings are that acceptance is task-dependent, that robot-type evaluations are broadly consistent across the two language groups, that Spanish-language participants report lower behavioral intention, and that qualitative ethical concerns are partly shared and partly context-specific (e.g., US respondents emphasize HIPAA and algorithmic bias, while Spanish-language respondents emphasize economic access and relational care).

Significance. If the design supported the stated claims, this would be a useful contribution to empirical robot ethics and human-robot interaction: it compares four concrete care tasks within subjects, includes participants from two Latin American countries, integrates quantitative acceptance measures with qualitative ethical analysis, and is candid about small effect sizes and the interpretive status of the qualitative framework. The task-dependence result is plausible and consistent with prior work. However, the paper's central cross-country contribution is not actually tested as framed, because Mexico and Chile are pooled into a single Spanish-language group throughout the quantitative and qualitative analyses. The paper is nevertheless salvageable: the task-dependence findings and the qualitative ethical analysis can stand with a reframing to 'US vs. Spanish-speaking Latin American sample,' or with additional per-country analyses within the SP group.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; RQ1; §3.2; Table 4] The study is framed as comparing caregivers in the United States, Mexico, and Chile, but the only between-subjects factor analyzed is Language (EN vs. SP), with Mexico and Chile pooled (N=146) and no per-country breakdown. Table 4 therefore tests Language, not Country, and the three-country comparison promised in the abstract and RQ1 is never performed. If Mexican and Chilean respondents differ in healthcare infrastructure, technology exposure, or cultural values, the pooled SP estimates may represent neither country. The same issue affects §4.3.2, where the qualitative analysis compares 'participants from Mexico and Chile' as a bloc. Please either report a country-level analysis within the Spanish group (if subsample sizes allow) or explicitly reframe the contribution as a comparison between the US and a Spanish-speaking Latin American sample, and adjust the abstract, RQ1, and discussio
  2. [§3.1; §4.1] The paper's title and conclusions are about 'caregiver perspectives,' but sample eligibility rests entirely on Prolific pre-screening filters that self-report 'professional experience or affiliation' in healthcare. No validation item, distribution of roles, years of experience, work setting, or attention/quality checks are reported, and the Mexico/Chile group is not even split by country in Section 3.1. This sample-validity issue is load-bearing because the substantive claims generalize to caregivers. Please report the recruitment pipeline, the actual screening questions, demographic/professional background for each group, and a rationale for pooling; otherwise the claims should be restricted to 'participants with self-reported healthcare affiliation.'
  3. [Table 4] The reporting of the RM-ANOVA results is incomplete and internally inconsistent. Several rows lack a denominator df (e.g., Attitudes Toward Use: Robot Type F=5.159 with df '3.002'; Behavioral Intention interaction F=3.306 with df '3.020'), so the column header 'df n,dfd' is not actually followed. In addition, the note says Greenhouse–Geisser corrections were applied to Performance Expectancy, Self-Efficacy, and Ethical Judgment, yet decimal dfs also appear for Attitudes and Behavioral Intention. This prevents the reader from verifying the central quantitative results. Please restate the table with complete dfs, clearly indicate which effects received sphericity corrections, and report the corresponding corrected df values.
  4. [§4.2; Table 4; §5.1] The significant Robot Type × Language interactions for Behavioral Intention (F=3.306, p=.003) and Self-Efficacy (F=3.005, p=.030) are reported but never decomposed. Since one of the paper's central claims is that cross-cultural differences are concentrated in behavioral intention, the direction and robot-specific pattern of these interactions should be described (e.g., simple effects per robot category), especially because Table 3 suggests SP participants report lower behavioral intention for all four robot types but with varying magnitude. Also, the text uses non-significant interactions to assert 'cross-cultural consistency'; with very small η² values and no equivalence testing, this wording is too strong and should be softened to 'no significant differences were detected in this sample.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] Please give sample sizes for Mexico and Chile separately rather than only a pooled N=146; this is directly relevant to the grouping issue raised above.
  2. [§2.2] Reference [27] is listed as '[27, 27, 28]' in one sentence; also [19] and [65] are the same source and should be consolidated.
  3. [§3.4.2; §4.3] The open-ended questions are described as optional, but no response/completion rates are reported for the qualitative component. Differential nonresponse across groups or robot conditions could affect the thematic patterns and should be addressed.
  4. [§8; Figure 6] The supplementary Cochran's Q analysis is mentioned as supporting the psychiatric-setting finding, but no test statistics are reported. Please include the results or label the figure as purely descriptive.
  5. [Data Availability] The statement says the dataset is deposited in a public repository and 'will be made available upon reasonable request'; please clarify whether access is open or restricted, and provide a repository link if available.
  6. [Table 6] The table is rich but very long; consider moving it to the supplementary material or reducing the number of representative quotes per category in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical mixed-methods survey; acceptance scores and ethical themes are measured/analyzed rather than derived from the framework.

full rationale

The manuscript contains no formal derivation chain, fitted parameter, or invariance claim that could collapse into its inputs. The central results—task-dependent acceptance, language-group differences in behavioral intention, and shared versus distinct ethical themes—come from RM-ANOVA of participant ratings and from directed qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses. Scales are standard UTAUT/CAN instruments adapted only by wording (Section 3.4.1), and the ethical framework (Section 2.2.1) is used deductively to code data while allowing inductive refinement (Table 6 marks several categories as inductively identified with an asterisk), so the framework does not define the results by construction. Existing self-citations (e.g., refs. 12, 13, 25, 43) appear in related-work context and are not load-bearing for the empirical claims. The one notable methodological weakness—pooling Mexico and Chile into a single Spanish group (Sections 3.1–3.2, 2.5.2)—reduces granularity of the country-level comparison and could threaten external-validity claims, but it is a sampling/operationalization issue, not circularity: the paper does not define cross-country similarity in terms of the pooled analysis or use the pooled grouping to prove the cross-country conclusion by construction. No step in the paper reduces to a self-citation chain or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters were fit: composite scores are unweighted means of published UTAUT/CAN items (Table 2). The 'overall rating' items were written by the authors but are simple two-item Likert aggregates, not fitted constants. No new physical or theoretical entities are postulated; the literature-informed ethical framework is a coding scheme, not an invented mechanism.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Prolific screening filters identify caregivers with relevant professional experience.
    Section 3.1: inclusion is based on self-reported healthcare affiliation; no credential or employment verification is described.
  • domain assumption Short videos of four robot exemplars (TUG, Robear, Florence, exoskeleton) are valid operationalizations of the four care-robot categories.
    Section 3.2 and Figure 2: stimuli are third-party news/media clips rather than standardized or validated robot demonstrations.
  • domain assumption Mexico and Chile can be treated as a single 'SP' sociocultural group.
    Section 3.2: the between-subjects factor is language group; country-level comparisons between Mexico and Chile are not analyzed.
  • domain assumption English and Spanish versions of the survey are materially equivalent.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.5.2: verified by two researchers with machine translation and bilingual review, but no formal measurement invariance test is reported.
  • domain assumption Qualitative coding is reliable beyond the initial 20% double-coding.
    Section 3.5.2: one coder handled the remaining 80% of material; no inter-rater reliability statistic is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Centered Reflections on Care Robots: A Comparative Study of Caregiver Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WYRAZS22

@misc{pith2026260802411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Centered Reflections on Care Robots: A Comparative Study of Caregiver Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WYRAZS22}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02411}
}
read the original abstract

Care robots are increasingly being introduced into healthcare settings, raising important questions about their acceptance and ethical implementation. To better understand these challenges, this study investigates caregivers' perceptions of four categories of care robots: delivering supplies, helping patients into bed, monitoring vital signs, and assisting with mobility. We conducted a mixed-methods study employing a mixed-factorial design in which 298 caregivers from the United States, Mexico, and Chile evaluated all four robot categories. Quantitative measures integrated constructs from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, the Cognitive-Affective-Normative model, and overall acceptance ratings. Qualitative data were collected through open-ended questions and analyzed using a literature-informed ethical framework. The results indicate that participants across countries generally evaluated care robots positively, particularly for logistical and physically demanding tasks rather than those requiring intensive interpersonal interaction. The qualitative findings provide further insight into stakeholders' views of the ethical implications of care robot use. Participants emphasized potential benefits such as reduced workload, lower risk, and greater patient autonomy, while also expressing concerns about dependability, the need for human oversight, and potential job displacement. Although many ethical concerns were shared across countries, participants differed in how they interpreted and prioritized them. These findings advance a context-sensitive and socially informed understanding of responsible design and implementation of care robots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02411 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the comparative mixed-methods design. Quantitative acceptance analyses (UTAUT and CAN) and qualitative ethical evaluations were conducted in parallel and subsequently integrated to develop a comprehensive under￾standing of the acceptance of four types of care robots across sociocultural contexts. • Aim 1: To experimentally evaluate caregivers’ acceptance of four categories of healthcare robots across thr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative examples of the four healthcare robot categories included in the study: (a) autonomous delivery robot (TUG) [61], (b) patient-assistive robot (Robear) designed to support patient transfer and lifting tasks [62], (c) monitoring robot (Florence) used for patient assessment and vital-sign monitoring [63], and (d) rehabilitation exoskeleton designed to support mobility and physical recovery [64]. function… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the experimental procedure, including participant onboarding, scenario assessment, and repeated evaluations of the four care robots. normative dimensions. Given the relational and ethically sensitive nature of care robots, integrat￾ing both models enabled a more comprehensive assessment of acceptance. We also included an overall rating. Because the original UTAUT items were devel￾oped for… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ethical framework for the evaluation of care robots. The framework combines concepts derived from Consequentialism, Care Ethics, and the Capabilities Approach with empirically derived concerns emerging from participants’ responses to open￾ended questions. The circular …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observed proportions of perceived robot suitability across medical contexts by language using Cochran’s Q analysis. 8 Supplementary Material As part of the study, participants were also asked to indicate the healthcare settings in which they believed each robot could b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    SN Computer Science5(1), 189 (2024)

    Silvera-Tawil, D.: Robotics in healthcare: a survey. SN Computer Science5(1), 189 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Sequeira, J.S.: Can social robots make soci- eties more human? Information9(12), 295 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters9(8), 7094– 7101 (2024)

    Mohan, R., Arce, J., Mokhtar, S., Catta- neo, D., Valada, A.: Syn-mediverse: a multi- modal synthetic dataset for intelligent scene understanding of healthcare facilities. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters9(8), 7094– 7101 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    In: International Workshop on Applications of Medical AI, pp

    Hindel, J., Mekic, E., Enamundram, N.K., Mohan, R., Cattaneo, D., Kalweit, M., Val- ada, A.: Dynamic robot-assisted surgery with hierarchical class-incremental semantic seg- mentation. In: International Workshop on Applications of Medical AI, pp. 246–257 (2025). Springer

    2025

  5. [5]

    Robotics and autonomous sys- tems61(12), 1476–1486 (2013)

    De Graaf, M.M., Allouch, S.B.: Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and autonomous sys- tems61(12), 1476–1486 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology17(2), 166–176 (2022)

    Johansson-Pajala, R.-M., Gustafsson, C.: Sig- nificant challenges when introducing care robots in swedish elder care. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology17(2), 166–176 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, pp

    Frennert, S.: Expectations and sensemaking: Older people and care robots. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, pp. 191–206 (2020). Springer

    2020

  8. [8]

    International Journal of Social Robotics12(5), 1103–1117 (2020)

    Johansson-Pajala, R.-M., Thommes, K., Hoppe, J.A., Tuisku, O., Hennala, L., Pekkari- nen, S., Melkas, H., Gustafsson, C.: Care robot orientation: What, who and how? poten- tial users’ perceptions. International Journal of Social Robotics12(5), 1103–1117 (2020)

    2020

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 11(3), 515–538 (2019)

    Bruno, B., Recchiuto, C.T., Papadopoulos, I., Saffiotti, A., Koulouglioti, C., Menicatti, 22 R., Mastrogiovanni, F., Zaccaria, R., Sgor- bissa, A.: Knowledge representation for cultur- ally competent personal robots: requirements, design principles, implementation, and assess-...

    2019

  2. [10]

    In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp

    Sanoubari, E., Young, J.E.: Explicit, neutral, or implicit: a cross-cultural exploration of communication-style preferences in human robot interaction. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 237–238 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    International Journal of Social Robotics1(4), 319–330 (2009)

    Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics1(4), 319–330 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02654 (2022)

    Londo˜ no, L., R¨ ofer, A., Welschehold, T., Val- ada, A.: Doing right by not doing wrong in human-robot collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02654 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.16480 (2025)

    Livanec, S., Londo˜ no, L., Gorki, M., R¨ ofer, A., Valada, A., Kiesel, A.: Designing for dif- ference: How human characteristics shape perceptions of collaborative robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.16480 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    International Journal of Social Robotics (2025)

    Klebbe, R., Friese, C.: Exploring the role of robots in inpatient care: Caregiver’s perspec- tives on the development and evaluation of collaborative robot applications – a qualita- tive research approach. International Journal of Social Robotics (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Cham, Switzerland (2022)

    Bon, A., Dittoh, F., Lˆ o, G., Pini, M., Bwana, R.M., Cheah, W., Kulathuramaiyer, N., Baart, A.: Decolonizing Technology and Society: A Perspective from the Global South. Cham, Switzerland (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Global Policy (2025)

    Garcia, E.V.: Technology for whom and for what? a global south view of tech diplomacy. Global Policy (2025). Policy Analysis, Early View

    2025

  9. [17]

    The Cambridge Handbook of the Law, Ethics and Policy of Artificial Intelligence (7), 131–150 (2022)

    Gordon, R.E.: Development disrupted: Tech- nology and the global south. The Cambridge Handbook of the Law, Ethics and Policy of Artificial Intelligence (7), 131–150 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    MIS quarterly, 425–478 (2003)

    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of informa- tion technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425–478 (2003)

    2003

  11. [20]

    Journal of biomedical informatics 43(1), 159–172 (2010)

    Holden, R.J., Karsh, B.-T.: The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of biomedical informatics 43(1), 159–172 (2010)

    2010

  12. [21]

    International Journal of Qualitative Methods24(2025)

    Roy, P.: Applying utaut2 in qualitative research: A systematic review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods24(2025)

    2025

  13. [22]

    Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems7(1), 1–18 (2024)

    Torras, C.: Ethics of social robotics: Individ- ual and societal concerns and opportunities. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems7(1), 1–18 (2024)

    2024

  14. [23]

    International Journal of Social Robotics15(9), 1637–1654 (2023)

    Yuan, S., Coghlan, S., Lederman, R., Waycott, J.: Ethical design of social robots in aged care: A literature review using an ethics of care perspective. International Journal of Social Robotics15(9), 1637–1654 (2023)

    2023

  15. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09224 (2025)

    Leineweber, M., Keusgen, C.V., Bubeck, M., Haltaufderheide, J., Ranisch, R., Klingler, C.: Ethical aspects of the use of social robots in elderly care–a systematic qualitative review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09224 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Proceedings of the IEEE112(4), 305–330 (2024)

    Londo˜ no, L., Hurtado, J.V., Hertz, N., Kellmeyer, P., Voeneky, S., Valada, A.: Fair- ness and bias in robot learning. Proceedings of the IEEE112(4), 305–330 (2024)

    2024

  17. [26]

    Archives of gerontology and geriatrics74, 15–25 (2018)

    Vandemeulebroucke, T., De Casterl´ e, B.D., Gastmans, C.: The use of care robots in aged care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics74, 15–25 (2018)

    2018

  18. [27]

    Machine ethics and robot ethics, 185–211 (2020)

    Van Wynsberghe, A.: Designing robots for 23 care: Care centered value-sensitive design. Machine ethics and robot ethics, 185–211 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering9, 1–12 (2022)

    Hung, L., Mann, J., Perry, J., Berndt, A., Wong, J.: Technological risks and ethical implications of using robots in long-term care. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering9, 1–12 (2022)

    2022

  20. [29]

    Journal of Medical Ethics46(2), 128–136 (2020)

    Vandemeulebroucke, T., Casterl´ e, B.D., Gast- mans, C.: Ethics of socially assistive robots in aged-care settings: A socio-historical contex- tualisation. Journal of Medical Ethics46(2), 128–136 (2020)

    2020

  21. [30]

    Harvard university press, ??? (1993)

    Gilligan, C.: In a Different Voice: Psycho- logical Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard university press, ??? (1993)

    1993

  22. [31]

    Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (2015)

    Tronto, J.C.: Who Cares?: How to Reshape a Democratic Politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY (2015)

    2015

  23. [32]

    Nussbaum, M.C.: Women and Human Devel- opment: The Capabilities Approach vol. 3. Cambridge university press, ??? (2000)

    2000

  24. [33]

    The stanford encyclopedia of philoso- phy

    Sinnott-Armstrong, W.: Consequentialism. The stanford encyclopedia of philoso- phy. Available at: https://plato. stanford. edu/archives/win2015/entries . . . (2015)

    2015

  25. [34]

    Machine learn- ing and the city: Applications in architecture and urban design, 535–545 (2022)

    Floridi, L., Cowls, J.: A unified framework of five principles for ai in society. Machine learn- ing and the city: Applications in architecture and urban design, 535–545 (2022)

    2022

  26. [35]

    Autonomous Robots24(2), 159–178 (2008)

    Walters, M.L., Syrdal, D.S., Dautenhahn, K., Boekhorst, R., Koay, K.L.: Avoiding the uncanny valley: Robot appearance, personal- ity and consistency of behavior in an attention- seeking home scenario for a robot companion. Autonomous Robots24(2), 159–178 (2008)

    2008

  27. [36]

    International Journal of Social Robotics 16(6), 1361–1380 (2024)

    Chatzoglou, P.D., Lazaraki, V., Apostolidis, S.D., Gasteratos, A.C.: Factors affecting acceptance of social robots among prospective users. International Journal of Social Robotics 16(6), 1361–1380 (2024)

    2024

  28. [37]

    In: Korn, O

    Niemel¨ a, M., Heikkil¨ a, P., Lammi, H., Oks- man, V.: A social robot in a shopping mall: Studies on acceptance and stakeholder expec- tations. In: Korn, O. (ed.) Social Robots: Technological, Societal and Ethical Aspects of Human-Robot Interaction. Human–Computer Interaction...

    2019

  29. [38]

    human autonomy: Social robots, artificial intelligence (ai), and the nature of autonomy

    Formosa, P.: Robot autonomy vs. human autonomy: Social robots, artificial intelligence (ai), and the nature of autonomy. Minds and Machines31(4), 595–616 (2021)

    2021

  30. [39]

    Journal of Bioethical Inquiry19(1), 11–14 (2022)

    Johnston, C.: Ethical design and use of robotic care of the elderly. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry19(1), 11–14 (2022)

    2022

  31. [40]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61(12), 1476–1486 (2013)

    Graaf, M.M.A., Allouch, S.B.: Exploring influ- encing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61(12), 1476–1486 (2013)

    2013

  32. [41]

    Centre Tricontinental (CETRI) (2020)

    Leterme, C.: New north–south issues in the digital economy. Centre Tricontinental (CETRI) (2020)

    2020

  33. [42]

    Accessed: 23 January 2026 (2023)

    Yu, D., Rosenfeld, H., Gupta, A.: The ’AI Divide’ Between the Global North and the Global South. Accessed: 23 January 2026 (2023). https://www.weforum.org/stories/20 23/01/davos23-ai-divide-global-north-globa l-south/

    2026

  34. [43]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 650325 (2021)

    Hurtado, J.V., Londo˜ no, L., Valada, A.: From learning to relearning: A framework for diminishing bias in social robot navigation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 650325 (2021)

    2021

  35. [44]

    International Journal of Social Robotics (2025)

    Ahmad, S.M., et al.: Understanding the impact of robots’ embodiment on user accep- tance in social robotics. International Journal of Social Robotics (2025)

    2025

  36. [45]

    In: 2013 European Conference on Mobile Robots, pp

    Ferrer, G., Garrell, A., Sanfeliu, A.: Social- aware robot navigation in urban environments. In: 2013 European Conference on Mobile Robots, pp. 331–336 (2013). IEEE

    2013

  37. [46]

    Autonomous robots41(4), 775–793 (2017)

    Ferrer, G., Zulueta, A.G., Cotarelo, F.H., Sanfeliu, A.: Robot social-aware navigation 24 framework to accompany people walking side- by-side. Autonomous robots41(4), 775–793 (2017)

    2017

  38. [47]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2025)

    Lawrence, S.: The role of social norms in human–robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (2025)

    2025

  39. [48]

    In: Ge, S.S., Cabibihan, J.- J., Salichs, M.A., Broadbent, E

    Marchesi, S., Roselli, C., Wykowska, A.: Cul- tural values, but not nationality, predict social inclusion of robots. In: Ge, S.S., Cabibihan, J.- J., Salichs, M.A., Broadbent, E. (eds.) Social Robotics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13062, pp. 49–58. Springer, ??? (2021)

    2021

  40. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Confer- ence on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’19), pp

    Li, H., Milani, S., Krishnamoorthy, V., Lewis, M., Sycara, K.: Perceptions of domestic robots’ normative behavior across cultures. In: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Confer- ence on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’19), pp. 345–351. ACM, ??? (2019)

    2019

  41. [50]

    Springer, ??? (2011)

    Kovner, A.R., Knickman, J.R., Weisfeld, V.D.: Jonas and Kovner’s Health Care Delivery in the United States. Springer, ??? (2011)

    2011

  42. [51]

    NAM Special Publication (2020)

    Matheny, M., Israni, S.T., Ahmed, M., Whicher, D.: Artificial intelligence in health care: The hope, the hype, the promise, the peril. NAM Special Publication (2020)

    2020

  43. [52]

    npj Digital Medicine 7(1), 45 (2024)

    Lee, D.,et al.: Levels of autonomy in fda- cleared surgical robots. npj Digital Medicine 7(1), 45 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    Health Services Research (2024)

    Abdullah, A., et al.: How are us hospitals adopting artificial intelligence? early evidence from 2022. Health Services Research (2024). Early online publication

    2022

  45. [54]

    Robotics 13(6), 125 (2024)

    Cruz, P.,et al.: Robotics applications in the hospital domain: A literature review. Robotics 13(6), 125 (2024)

    2024

  46. [55]

    Intelligent Ser- vice Robotics17(3), 685–701 (2024)

    Soljacic, F., Law, T., Chita-Tegmark, M., Scheutz, M.: Robots in healthcare as envi- sioned by care professionals. Intelligent Ser- vice Robotics17(3), 685–701 (2024)

    2024

  47. [56]

    UNESCO Paris, ??? (2021)

    Schneegans, S., Lewis, J., Straza, T.: The Race Against Time for Smarter Development. UNESCO Paris, ??? (2021)

    2021

  48. [57]

    She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation10(2), 192–222 (2024)

    Dutta, N., Dhar, D.: Understanding medical technology innovation in low-and middle- income countries: factors, impact, and a model proposal. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation10(2), 192–222 (2024)

    2024

  49. [58]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2018)

    Gereffi, G.: Global Value Chains and Devel- opment: Redefining the Contours of 21st Century Capitalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2018)

    2018

  50. [59]

    Revista panameri- cana de salud publica11(5-6), 335–355 (2002)

    Dachs, J.N.W., Ferrer, M., Florez, C.E., Bar- ros, A.J., Narvaez, R., Valdivia, M.: Inequal- ities in health in latin america and the caribbean: descriptive and exploratory results for self-reported health problems and health care in twelve countries. Revista panameri- cana de...

    2002

  51. [60]

    Expert Systems, 70220 (2026)

    Churata, D.V.P., Fantinato, M., Peres, S.M., Yassuda, M.S., Melo, R.C., Cachioni, M., Paradeda, R.B.: Exploring factors shaping social robot acceptance in older-adult care: Insights from brazilian caregivers. Expert Systems, 70220 (2026)

    2026

  52. [61]

    https://www.wired.com/2015/02/ incredible-hospital-robot-saving-lives-also-h ate/ Accessed 2025-07-16

    Wohlsen, M.: The Incredible Hospital Robot That Saves Lives—and Makes Everyone Hate It (2015). https://www.wired.com/2015/02/ incredible-hospital-robot-saving-lives-also-h ate/ Accessed 2025-07-16

    2015

  53. [62]

    https://www.nursingtimes.net/archive/exp erimental-robot-could-help-nurses-of-the -future-lift-patients-27-02-2015/ Accessed 2025-07-16

    Nursing Times: Experimental Robot Could Help Nurses of the Future Lift Patients (2015). https://www.nursingtimes.net/archive/exp erimental-robot-could-help-nurses-of-the -future-lift-patients-27-02-2015/ Accessed 2025-07-16

    2015

  54. [63]

    https://go vinsider.asia/intl-en/article/how-robots-can -help-healthcare-workers-bedside-manner-u ipath-ncs Accessed 2025-07-16

    GovInsider: How Robots Can Help Healthcare Workers’ Bedside Manner (2023). https://go vinsider.asia/intl-en/article/how-robots-can -help-healthcare-workers-bedside-manner-u ipath-ncs Accessed 2025-07-16

    2023

  55. [64]

    Haseltine, W.A.: Revolutionizing Rehabilita- tion: How Exoskeletons Are Restoring Mobil- ity for Neuromuscular Patients (2023). https: //www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/20 23/07/31/revolutionizing-rehabilitation-how -exoskeletons-are-restoring-mobility-for-neu 25 romuscu...

    2023

  56. [65]

    Computers in Human Behavior85, 43–53 (2018)

    Reinares-Lara, E., Olarte-Pascual, C., Pelegr´ ın-Borondo, J.: Do you want to be a cyborg? the moderating effect of ethics on neural implant acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior85, 43–53 (2018)

    2018

  57. [66]

    Plos one 16(4), 0250220 (2021)

    Shiferaw, K.B., Mengiste, S.A., Gullslett, M.K., Zeleke, A.A., Tilahun, B., Tebeje, T., Wondimu, R., Desalegn, S., Mehari, E.A.: Healthcare providers’ acceptance of telemedicine and preference of modalities dur- ing covid-19 pandemics in a low-resource setting: An extended uta...

    2021

  58. [67]

    Applied clinical informatics9(03), 604–634 (2018)

    Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Afshar, H.L., Timpka, T.: A systematic review of the technol- ogy acceptance model in health informatics. Applied clinical informatics9(03), 604–634 (2018)

    2018

  59. [68]

    MIS Quarterly27(3), 425–478 (2003)

    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of informa- tion technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3), 425–478 (2003)

    2003

  60. [69]

    Qualitative Health Research15(9), 1277–1288 (2005)

    Hsieh, H.-F., Shannon, S.E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analy- sis. Qualitative Health Research15(9), 1277–1288 (2005)

    2005

  61. [70]

    Journal of medical Internet research20(2), 8640 (2018)

    Broadbent, E., Garrett, J., Jepsen, N., Ogilvie, V.L., Ahn, H.S., Robinson, H., Peri, K., Kerse, N., Rouse, P., Pillai, A.,et al.: Using robots at home to support patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pilot ran- domized controlled trial. Journal of medical Inter...

    2018

  62. [71]

    AI & Society (2021)

    Wall, P., Saxena, A., Brown, I.: Ai in the global south: Potential and risks. AI & Society (2021)

    2021

  63. [72]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research19(11), 367 (2017)

    Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., Hughes, G., A’Court, C., Hinder, S., Fahy, R., Procter, J., Shaw, S.: Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, scale- up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technol...

    2017

  64. [73]

    Routledge, Lon- don (2016)

    Wynsberghe, A.: Healthcare Robots: Ethics, Design and Implementation. Routledge, Lon- don (2016)

    2016

  65. [74]

    Canadian Jour- nal of Occupational Therapy89(5), 402–410 (2022)

    Liu, L., Daum, C., Cruz, A.M., Neubauer, N., Perez, H., R´ ıos Rinc´ on, A.: Ageing, technol- ogy, and health: Advancing the concepts of autonomy and independence. Canadian Jour- nal of Occupational Therapy89(5), 402–410 (2022)

    2022

  66. [75]

    Bioethics36(2), 170–177 (2022)

    Apostolova, I., Lanoix, M.: The importance of developing care-worker-centered robotic aides in long-term care. Bioethics36(2), 170–177 (2022)

    2022

  67. [76]

    Basic Books, New York (2011)

    Turkle, S.: Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books, New York (2011)

    2011

  68. [77]

    Philosophy & Technology28(1), 107–124 (2015)

    Vallor, S.: Moral deskilling and upskilling in a new machine age: Reflections on the ambiguous future of character. Philosophy & Technology28(1), 107–124 (2015)

    2015

  69. [78]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research 21(7), 13322 (2019)

    Scoglio, A.A.J., Reilly, E.D., Gorman, J.A., Drebing, C.E.: Use of social robots in mental health and well-being research: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21(7), 13322 (2019)

    2019

  70. [79]

    International Journal of Social Robotics13(5), 919–935 (2021)

    Kabaci´ nska, K., Prescott, T.J., Robillard, J.M.: Socially assistive robots as mental health interventions for children: A scop- ing review. International Journal of Social Robotics13(5), 919–935 (2021)

    2021

  71. [80]

    Clin- ical Psychology Review35, 35–46 (2015)

    Rabbitt, S.M., Kazdin, A.E., Scassellati, B.: Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: Applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clin- ical Psychology Review35, 35–46 (2015)

    2015

  72. [81]

    In: Luxton, D.D

    Riek, L.D.: Robotics technology in mental health care. In: Luxton, D.D. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care, pp. 185–203. Elsevier, San Diego, CA (2016) 26 Fig. 6:Observed proportions of perceived robot suitability across medical contexts by lang...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.