Interactive robots for health in Europe: Technology readiness and adoption potential

Introduction Social robots are accompanied by high expectations of what they can bring to society and in the healthcare sector. So far, promising assumptions have been presented about how and where social robots are most relevant. We know that the industry has used robots for a long time, but what about social uptake outside industry, specifically, in the healthcare sector? This study discusses what trends are discernible, to better understand the gap between technology readiness and adoption of interactive robots in the welfare and health sectors in Europe. Methods An assessment of interactive robot applications at the upper levels of the Technology Readiness Level scale is combined with an assessment of adoption potential based on Rogers' theory of diffusion of innovation. Most robot solutions are dedicated to individual rehabilitation or frailty and stress. Fewer solutions are developed for managing welfare services or public healthcare. Results The results show that while robots are ready from the technological point of view, most of the applications had a low score for demand according to the stakeholders. Discussion To enhance social uptake, a more initiated discussion, and more studies on the connections between technology readiness and adoption and use are suggested. Applications being available to users does not mean they have an advantage over previous solutions. Acceptance of robots is also heavily dependent on the impact of regulations as part of the welfare and healthcare sectors in Europe.

[1]  Jiyeon Yu,et al.  Design of an Integrated Acceptance Framework for Older Users and eHealth: Influential Factor Analysis , 2022, Journal of medical Internet research.

[2]  Considerations for a Post-COVID-19 Technology and Innovation Ecosystem in China , 2022, Disaster Risk Reduction.

[3]  R. Shaw,et al.  Robotics and Its Advancement in Modern China , 2021, Considerations for a Post-COVID-19 Technology and Innovation Ecosystem in China.

[4]  Susanne Frennert,et al.  Technological Frames and Care Robots in Eldercare , 2020, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[5]  Iina Aaltonen,et al.  Robot acceptance model for care (RAM-care): A principled approach to the intention to use care robots , 2020, Inf. Manag..

[6]  Jaana Parviainen,et al.  Robots responding to care needs? A multitasking care robot pursued for 25 years, available products offer simple entertainment and instrumental assistance , 2020, Ethics and Information Technology.

[7]  B. Östlund,et al.  Technological Frames and Care Robots in Eldercare , 2020, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[8]  Kirsten Thommes,et al.  Care Robot Orientation: What, Who and How? Potential Users’ Perceptions , 2020, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[9]  T. Stieglitz,et al.  Obstacles to Prosthetic Care—Legal and Ethical Aspects of Access to Upper and Lower Limb Prosthetics in Germany and the Improvement of Prosthetic Care from a Social Perspective , 2020 .

[10]  Mario Coccia,et al.  A Theory of the Evolution of Technology: Technological Parasitism and the Implications for Innovation Management , 2020 .

[11]  Tuuli Turja,et al.  Care Workers’ Readiness for Robotization: Identifying Psychological and Socio-Demographic Determinants , 2019, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[12]  Christian U. Krägeloh,et al.  Questionnaires to Measure Acceptability of Social Robots: A Critical Review , 2019, Robotics.

[13]  S. Frennert Hitting a moving target: digital transformation and welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare , 2019, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[14]  Atte Oksanen,et al.  Care Workers’ Readiness for Robotization: Identifying Psychological and Socio-Demographic Determinants , 2019, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[15]  E. Zoulias,et al.  The Role of Education for the Social Uptake of Robotics: The Case of the eCraft2Learn Project , 2018, Inclusive Robotics for a Better Society.

[16]  Florian L. Haufe,et al.  The CYBATHLON - Bionic Olympics to Benchmark Assistive Technologies , 2018, Inclusive Robotics for a Better Society.

[17]  Christina Jaschinski,et al.  Independent Aging with the Help of Smart Technology: Investigating the Acceptance of Ambient Assisted Living Technologies , 2018 .

[18]  Cecilie Givskov,et al.  Media and the ageing body: Introduction to the special issue , 2018 .

[19]  P. Adler,et al.  The Evolution of Management Models: A Neo-Schumpeterian Theory , 2018 .

[20]  Raya A. Jones,et al.  What makes a robot ‘social’? , 2017, Social studies of science.

[21]  Sonya S. Kwak,et al.  The Effects of Organism- Versus Object-Based Robot Design Approaches on the Consumer Acceptance of Domestic Robots , 2017, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[22]  Jacques Bughin,et al.  A future that works: automation, employment, and productivity , 2017 .

[23]  Michael A. Osborne,et al.  The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? , 2017 .

[24]  M. Arntz,et al.  The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis , 2016 .

[25]  Lambèr M. M. Royakkers,et al.  A Literature Review on New Robotics: Automation from Love to War , 2015, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[26]  Lambèr M. M. Royakkers,et al.  Automation from Love to War , 2015 .

[27]  Ryan A. Beasley Medical Robots: Current Systems and Research Directions , 2012, J. Robotics.

[28]  Takanori Shibata,et al.  Therapeutic Seal Robot as Biofeedback Medical Device: Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluations of Robot Therapy in Dementia Care , 2012, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[29]  S. Gellerstedt Oro för utarmade jobb och digital taylorism , 2012 .

[30]  Robert E. Pinsker,et al.  Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. , 2012 .

[31]  Martin Fischer,et al.  Service robotics: do you know your new companion? Framing an interdisciplinary technology assessment , 2011, Poiesis Prax..

[32]  Paul G Shekelle,et al.  Results and Conclusion , 2009 .

[33]  L. Schön Technological Waves and Economic Growth - Sweden in an International Perspective 1850-2005 , 2009 .

[34]  Steffen Bohni Nielsen,et al.  Improving Performance? , 2008 .

[35]  Arpan K Banerjee,et al.  Science and Technology in Medicine: An Illustrated Account Based on Ninety-Nine Landmark Publications from Five Centuries , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[36]  Marta Szebehely Omsorgsvardag under skiftande organisatoriska villkor – en jämförande studie av den nordiska hemtjänsten , 2006 .

[37]  Booncharoen Sirinaovakul,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue , 2002, Comput. Intell..

[38]  M. Koivusalo,et al.  The World Health Report 2000 , 2002 .

[39]  Brian Peacock,et al.  Cobots for the automobile assembly line , 1999, Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.99CH36288C).

[40]  Håkan Eftring,et al.  The Useworthiness of Robots for People with Physical Disabilities , 1999 .

[41]  R. D. Schraft,et al.  Service robots: the appropriate level of automation and the role of users/operators in the task execution , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Systems Man and Cybernetics Conference - SMC.

[42]  泰義 横小路,et al.  IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 1992 .

[43]  B. Latour Technology is Society Made Durable , 1990 .

[44]  Jan-Erik Hagberg Tekniken i kvinnornas händer : Hushållsarbete och hushållsteknik under tjugo- och trettiotalen , 1986 .

[45]  L. Thomas On the science and technology of medicine. , 1977, Daedalus.

[46]  David Fishlock,et al.  Alone or Together , 1967 .

[47]  C. Aring,et al.  A CRITICAL REVIEW , 1939, Journal of neurology and psychiatry.