Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Medical robots are increasingly used for a variety of applications in healthcare. Robots have mainly been used to support surgical procedures, and for a variety of assistive uses in dementia and elderly care. To date, there has been limited debate about the potential opportunities and risks of robotics in other areas of palliative, supportive and end-of-life care.

Aim:

The objective of this article is to examine the possible future impact of medical robotics on palliative, supportive care and end-of-life care. Specifically, we will discuss the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of this technology.

Methods:

A SWOT analysis to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of robotic technology in palliative and supportive care.

Results:

The opportunities of robotics in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care include a number of assistive, therapeutic, social and educational uses. However, there are a number of technical, societal, economic and ethical factors which need to be considered to ensure meaningful use of this technology in palliative care.

Conclusion:

Robotics could have a number of potential applications in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. Future work should evaluate the health-related, economic, societal and ethical implications of using this technology. There is a need for collaborative research to establish use-cases and inform policy, to ensure the appropriate use (or non-use) of robots for people with serious illness.

Keywords

Robotics technology healthcare palliative care end-of-life care supportive care

What is already known about the topic?

Medical robots have mainly been used to support surgical procedures and for a variety of assistive uses in dementia and elderly care.

There has been limited debate about the potential opportunities and risks of robotics in other areas of palliative, supportive and end-of-life care.

What this paper adds?

The potential opportunities of robotics in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care include a number of assistive, therapeutic, social and educational uses.

There is concern that robots will exacerbate healthcare inequalities, disrupt the workforce and reduce face-to-face human interaction.

Implications for practice, theory or policy

Future work should evaluate the health-related, economic, societal and ethical implications of using robotic technology in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care.

There is a need for collaborative research to establish use-cases and policy recommendations to guide the appropriate use of robots for people with serious illness.

Background

A robot is ‘a reprogrammable, multi-functional manipulator designed to move materials, parts, tools, or other specialised devices through various programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks’.¹ Medical robots are increasingly used for a variety of applications in clinical medicine^1–4 such as laparoscopic surgery,⁵ surgical training,^6,7 rehabilitation^8,9 and assistive personal care.^10,11 Furthermore, robots have been used for non-patient-orientated purposes, such as medical cleaning, automated medication delivery and transport of equipment.^1,12 Robots have also been used for a variety of assistive uses in dementia and elderly care^13–16; however, to date, there is limited debate about the potential opportunities and risks of robotics specifically related to palliative, supportive and end-of-life care.^13–18 The global need for palliative care is increasing,¹⁹ more purposeful use of healthcare robots has been proposed as solution for health services to meet the needs of an increasingly frail population.²⁰ Consequently, it is essential to evaluate the benefits and risks of the development and use of robotics in this area, to ensure future policy is informed by evidence.

Aim

This article examines the possible future impacts of medical robotics within palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. Specifically, we will discuss the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of this technology.

Method

A SWOT analysis was undertaken to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of robotic technology in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. A SWOT approach was chosen for its ability to provide a wide narrative overview of the subject. A systematic review was not considered for the following reasons. First, there are relatively few published papers specifically about the use of robots in palliative and end-of-life care. Second, there is great heterogeneity in the published work about healthcare robotics, involving different study designs and outcome measures (e.g. social vs assistive robotics). Therefore, most meaningful analyses will likely be derived from narrow systematic reviews, which focus on specific applications of robotics in palliative care. We therefore chose the SWOT approach to provide an overview of robotics in this area. This will support the conduct of focused systematic reviews to further explore the areas identified by this SWOT analysis.

SWOT development

Potential applications of robots in palliative care were imagined through discussion and debate, through meetings between computer scientists (T.R.P. and B.S.), a palliative care researcher (S.M.) and a clinician in palliative care (A.C.N.). A protocol was developed to explore the capabilities of a robot to exhibit human emotional responses (see supplementary files). The robot was developed (by B.S. and T.R.P.) and was presented (by A.C.N.) at a series of events which aimed to imagine the future of healthcare. The opportunities and risks of using robots to support palliative care patients and their families, and the delivery of services were discussed. These events were

A public engagement debate with a multi-professional audience including computer scientists, academics, clinicians, social scientists, ethicists and members of the public (University of Liverpool). Data were generated via a group discussion where feedback was recorded via flip chart paper.

A computer science seminar attended by computer scientists, data experts and healthcare professionals (University of Liverpool). Data were generated via a group discussion where feedback was recorded via flip chart paper.

An oral presentation at a dedicated robotics session at an international palliative care conference (the Association for Palliative Medicine (APM) Annual Supportive & Palliative Care (ASP) conference, Belfast, 2017²¹). Following the session, written feedback was recorded to summarise the questions, discussion and debate.

Data from these events were collated and categorised into the themes of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The SWOT was further informed by a round table discussion at the Winter Forum of the Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, University of Liverpool. This is a multi-professional meeting involving researchers, healthcare professionals and public representatives. Forum attendees (approximately 50) were invited to participate in the round table discussion. A modified world café method²² was used to answer the question ‘what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of robotic technology in palliative care?’ The procedure involved three 20-min rounds of conversation for rotating small groups seated around a table. A facilitator (A.C.N.) promoted discussion through open questions and a scribe (T.McG.) collected written notes. The brief was to discuss their opinions of the (1) strengths, (2) weaknesses, (3) opportunities and (4) threats of robotic technology in palliative care. In total, 15 individuals (5 lay representatives, 5 clinicians, 3 researchers and 2 nurses) voluntarily participated in the round table discussion. After completion of the group discussion, individuals were invited to share their insights with the rest of the forum attendees.

Results

A summary of the SWOT analysis is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of robotic technology in palliative and supportive care.

Strengths	Weakness
• Do not need salary. • Do not need food. • Can do repetitive tasks consistently without making errors. • Automatic: Can be programmed to move without human interference. • Does not require training and education in the same way humans do. • Strong and resilient. • Can work quickly and are unaffected by factors which may affect human performance (e.g. anxiety, hunger). • Overcomes ‘human error’ and poor decision making. • Standardised performance. • Opportunity for rapid adoption and improvements in software based on best evidence. • Consistent with current global priorities around robotics for health. • Improving technology (sensor-based technology, fifth-generation (5G) Internet, Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data). • Some users may prefer robotic interactions for certain tasks.	• Unable to feel and express genuine emotion and empathic response. • Limited dexterity (fine manipulation of objects is challenging). • Expensive. • Requires highly skilled maintenance. • Limited battery life. • Robots have the ability to store, access and retrieve large amounts of data, but concern they may not be as ‘responsive’ or ‘adaptive’ as the human brain. • Only effective for the job that they are programmed to do. • They can perform repetitive tasks for longer periods of time, but they do not get better with experience. • Different expectations and acceptance of robots from patients, caregivers, designers and policy makers. • Lack of trust of robots.
Opportunities	Threats
General • Greater choice and access to healthcare. Assistive • To complement tasks delivered by human. • Service purposes for patients with serious illness. • Cleaning. • To support medication dispensing process. • Monitoring Activities of Daily Living (ADL). • To monitor physical activity (e.g. sedentary behaviour). • To log various postures, movements and activities. • To record emotional well-being. • To monitor daily routine and remind if anything missed. • Manual handling in clinical settings. • Provide care to remote communities or individuals. • May facilitate people to live in the residence of their choice as they age (ageing in place). • Monitoring and supporting nutrition and hydration. Therapeutic • Surgical procedures (including nanorobotics, nanosurgery and targeted oncological therapy). • Rehabilitation. • Medication delivery systems. • May allow more choice in care. Social • Companionship. • Can foster autonomy. Educational • May help improve discussion of palliative care topics with groups, particularly children. • Can potentially help complement delivery of simulation scenarios.	• Risk of anthropomorphising robotic interactions which could confuse human–robot relationship. • May result in unconscious bias due to the programming, design and function of the robot. • Fear that robots will be used to replace human interaction (e.g. less contact with family caregivers and healthcare professionals). • Inequality of access. • Concern that human workforce may be replaced, leading to job losses • Concern that use of robots may reduce patient–clinician contact and threaten the natural rapport and relationship building between healthcare professionals and patients • Investment into technological solutions at the expense of community and societal programmes. • Concern robots will worsen social isolation. • Violence. Ethical issues • Robustness and efficacy. • Safety and avoidance of harm. • Responsibility. • Unethical actions of robots. • Trust. • Moral agency. • Vulnerability and consent. • Deception. • Data privacy. • Data protection.

Strengths of robotic technology

Robots can work automatically without human interference, meaning they can undertake time-saving tasks.²³ They are useful in environments that are hazardous for humans (e.g. ionising radiation or airborne diseases).²⁴ Furthermore, a robot can be standardised to ensure consistent, error-free performance, which is not affected by anxiety, fatigue and hunger.¹ Some individuals may prefer robot interactions for certain procedures, for example, for convenience (e.g. blood pressure monitoring) or to maintain privacy or avoid embarrassment (e.g. personal care). A robot does not require lengthy training or educational interventions which are necessary for human workers. For example, robots have the potential to rapidly incorporate software updates to improve performance based on best evidence, whereas for human workforces, adoption of new systems or changing practice is comparatively more challenging. Furthermore, continued technological developments will create further opportunities to integrate robotics in healthcare, for example, improvements in battery storage capacity, graphene,^25,26 quantum computing,²⁷ fifth-generation (5G) Internet,²⁸ artificial intelligence (AI)²⁹ and Internet of things (IoT) technology.³⁰

Opportunities in palliative care

A general opportunity presented by robotics is to increase the choice and access of healthcare for patients.¹¹ Furthermore, current evidence suggests robotics can support a number of communication and assistive uses for the elderly. Such uses include applications for supporting mobility,^31–34 activities of daily living,^11,32–40 physical activity tracking/monitoring,^34,41 medication management,^37,40,42 and to support (and monitor) nutrition and hydration.^32,40,43 For healthcare professionals, robots may improve the efficiency (and safety) of manual handling⁴⁴ and cleaning procedures.^24,45 Robots can potentially support pharmacy processes by improving efficiency of medication dispensing.^42,46

Therapeutic uses for robots include the potential to improve mobility following spinal procedures^47,48 and to improve limb rehabilitation following stroke.⁴⁹ Minimally invasive robotic surgical procedures^50–53 combined with nanorobotics (robots at the scale of a nanometre (10⁻⁹ m)) offers the potential to improve care for patients through nano-procedures (medical and surgical) which do not currently exist.^54,55 Robots can potentially provide companionship in advanced illness. For example, elderly patients with dementia have been shown to gain therapeutic benefit from using a robotic seal (Paro) as a social companion.^56,57 Paro may also help older adults without cognitive limitations^58,59; however, those with severe mental impairment are unlikely to benefit.⁶⁰

Robots also have the potential to support educational initiatives. For example, in Japan, robots have been used to support health education programmes.⁶¹ Previous studies have demonstrated that social robotics can benefit language and social development in autistic children,⁶² presenting an opportunity for robots to facilitate education in wider society to promote better understanding of palliative care. Robots also have the potential to support palliative care training for healthcare professionals by creating immersive learning environments through the use of virtual reality.⁶³ In addition, robots may enhance high-fidelity patient simulation (HPS) by improving the functional ability of the manikin to exhibit emotion, move and respond to the learner.⁶⁴

Weaknesses

Robots are expensive and require supporting infrastructure to function (e.g. Internet connection, power supply and maintenance). Consequently, the technology is currently best suited to affluent healthcare organisations. Issues regarding infection control currently limit the practicality of using robots in some healthcare environments.⁶⁵ Robots can only do tasks they are programmed to do; therefore, they are suited for specific tasks but are less useful for problem solving.² Robots generally struggle with fine motor activities which reduces their usefulness for dextrous tasks like dressing, cooking and opening doors.⁶⁶ Robots can perform repetitive tasks for long periods of time but do not get better with experience (unless this is part of their programming). Robots are unable to feel and express genuine emotion which may reduce emotional connection and contribute to fear and distrust.^2,38,67,68 The expectations and acceptance of robots are likely to differ between patients, caregivers, designers and policy makers. It is therefore important to determine whether individuals want (and will accept) this technology in their lives.^43,44,69

Threats

Robots may widen inequalities in society, as certain individuals and organisations may have no access to this technology. Furthermore, there is a risk that robots may propagate unconscious bias. Evidence demonstrates that the individuals involved in the development and testing of data-driven technologies are generally small and homogeneous; therefore, there is a risk that the technology may not represent the needs of wider society.⁷⁰ Consequently, robotic systems may have implicit perceived social norms which may result in unintended consequences.⁷¹ It is feared that robots will replace human contact and will cause job losses, leading to decreased patient-contact with healthcare professionals, and increased social isolation of the elderly.^67,68 Such fears have resulted in violence against robots.⁷² For public health, there is concern that technological investment will replace other societal initiatives.⁶⁸ A number of ethical issues also need to be considered.^73–75 These include concerns about the robustness and efficacy of robots to ensure human safety. It is important to determine responsibility for robots and their software, (particularly if the devices fail) to prevent breeches of data protection and confidentiality. Furthermore, this raises questions of whether robots should always follow the instruction of their masters, even if the intended actions are unlawful or harmful (e.g. facilitating use of illicit substances, euthanasia, alcohol consumption, etc.). A robot that chooses (or is programmed) to disobey its master for a particular reason (e.g. to avoid harm) may lose the trust of the operator. These issues emphasise the moral agency of robots, particularly their use with vulnerable individuals with serious illness. In addition, the use (or continued use) of robots in those who lose capacity needs further evaluation (to determine best interests) and debate around other important questions such as whether using robots as social companions (e.g. animal substitutes in dementia) is deceptive. There is also an increased threat to data privacy and protection as robots are likely to access, record and generate a large amount of personal data which could be used without the consent of the individual.⁷⁶

Discussion

Main findings and new knowledge

This article discusses the potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis) of robotic technology in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. This narrative overview highlights opportunities for the future role of robotics in a variety of assistive, therapeutic, social and educational uses in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. Identified threats highlighted by this article include the risk of greater social inequalities, increased social isolation, inherent unconscious bias, reduced human contact, job losses and a deleterious impact on public health.

How this work relates to current developments

There is a lack of studies which specifically examine the potential of robotics in palliative care; however, our discussion supports work from other disciplines that outline the potential of robotics in healthcare. It is important to note the political importance of healthcare robotics. For example, China is ageing more rapidly than almost any country in recent history.⁷⁷ Currently, investment in healthcare robots is a priority for the Chinese government, who hope that robots will support economic growth.⁷⁸ Although population ageing is a global challenge, it is important to acknowledge that China’s experience may not translate to other areas due to cultural, infrastructural and political differences. A notable theme throughout this article is the association between robotics and public health. There is concern that robotics will exacerbate health inequalities, disrupt the workforce and reduce face-to-face human interaction. Our discussion highlights the importance of evaluating the health-related, economic, societal and ethical implications of using technology in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. Future forecasting needs to consider how robots will interface with other related disciplines, such as architecture, transportation and public services.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations of this analysis. First, a SWOT analysis is limited by a degree of subjectivity and a lack of ability to clearly forecast the future. This SWOT analysis does not include non-English articles. Because China drives much of the innovation in healthcare robotics, it is likely that relevant data were excluded from this article. This analysis is not a systematic review; therefore, it is possible that important data were not included. We are unable to provide conclusions about the usefulness, efficacy or effectiveness of a robot in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care.

Future opportunities and research possibilities

This article provides a foundation for future systematic reviews to study specific areas arising from this SWOT analysis. Future research should identify use-cases (a list of actions or event steps typically defining the interactions between a role and a system, in order to achieve a goal⁷⁹) for robots in palliative care. Broadly, these relate to assistive, therapeutic, social and education purposes. Research should evaluate how human factors (e.g. culture, gender and age) can influence perception, acceptance and use of robotic systems. Studies can explore opportunities to use Big Data and Artificial Intelligence in combination with robotic systems in palliative care.⁷⁶ As a priority, researchers should evaluate the long-term public health, societal, ethical and economic implications of this technology.

Conclusion

Robotics may have a number of potential applications in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. It is imperative that future work evaluates the health-related, economic, societal and ethical implications of using this technology. There is a need for collaborative research to establish use-cases and inform policy to ensure appropriate use of robotics for people with serious illness.

Supplemental Material

857628_supp_mat – Supplemental material for Robotic technology for palliative and supportive care: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Supplemental material, 857628_supp_mat for Robotic technology for palliative and supportive care: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats by Amara Callistus Nwosu, Bethany Sturgeon, Tamsin McGlinchey, Christian DG Goodwin, Ardhendu Behera, Stephen Mason, Sarah Stanley and Terry R Payne in Palliative Medicine

Supplemental Material

857628_supp_mat_table – Supplemental material for Robotic technology for palliative and supportive care: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Supplemental material, 857628_supp_mat_table for Robotic technology for palliative and supportive care: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats by Amara Callistus Nwosu, Bethany Sturgeon, Tamsin McGlinchey, Christian DG Goodwin, Ardhendu Behera, Stephen Mason, Sarah Stanley and Terry R Payne in Palliative Medicine

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Amara Nwosu and Sarah Stanley’s hospice posts are supported by Marie Curie. Amara Nwosu and Sarah Stanley’s academic posts are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) North West Coast–Clinical Research Network (CRN).

Author contributions

The author’s responsibilities were as follows: Project design: A.C.N., S.M. and T.R.P. Data collection: A.C.N. and T.McG. Robot programming: B.S. and T.R.P. Paper writing: A.C.N., T.McG. and C.D.G.G. Critique and review of the final manuscript: A.C.N., B.S., T.McG., S.M, C.D.G.G., A.B., S.S. and T.R.P.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

This project did not constitute research. Therefore, ethics committee approval was not required.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iD

Amara Callistus Nwosu

References

Beasley

RA.

Medical robots: current systems and research directions. J Robot 2012; 2012: 14.

Ceccarelli

Problems and issues for service robots in new applications. Int J Soc Robot 2011; 3: 299–312.

Dallaway

Jackson

Timmers

PH.

Rehabilitation robotics in Europe. IEEE T Rehabil Eng 1995; 3: 35–45.

Nwosu

Mason

Palliative medicine and smartphones: an opportunity for innovation?

BMJ Support Palliat Care 2012; 2(1): 75–77.

Roh

Nam

Kim

JM.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2018; 13(1): e0191628.

Randell

Honey

Hindmarsh

, et al. A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making. Health Serv Deliv Res. NIHR Journals Library 2017; 5(20): 1–140.

Pernar

LIM

Robertson

Tavakkoli

, et al. An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery. Surg Endosc 2017; 31(11): 4583–4596.

Ona

Cano-de la Cuerda

Sanchez-Herrera

, et al. A review of robotics in neurorehabilitation: towards an automated process for upper limb. J Healthc Eng 2018; 2018: 9758939.

Lefeber

Swinnen

Kerckhofs

The immediate effects of robot-assistance on energy consumption and cardiorespiratory load during walking compared to walking without robot-assistance: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2017; 12(7): 657–671.

10.

Vandemeulebroucke

Dierckx

Casterle

Gastmans

The use of care robots in aged care: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2018; 74: 15–25.

11.

Bilyea

Seth

Nesathurai

, et al. Robotic assistants in personal care: a scoping review. Med Eng Phys 2017; 49: 1–6.

12.

Lavery

Samadi

Levinson

Not a zero-sum game: the adoption of robotics has increased overall prostatectomy utilization in the United States. J Urol 2011; 185: e33.

13.

Martín

Agüero

Cañas

, et al. Robots in therapy for dementia patients. J Phys Agents 2013; 7: 48–55.

14.

Darragh

Ahn

MacDonald

, et al. Homecare robots to improve health and well-being in mild cognitive impairment and early stage dementia: results from a scoping study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017; 18(12): 1099.e1–1099.e4.

15.

Huschilt

Clune

The use of socially assistive robots for dementia care. J Gerontol Nurs 2012; 38(10): 15–19.

16.

Petersen

Houston

Qin

, et al. The utilization of robotic pets in dementia care. J Alzheimers Dis 2017; 55(2): 569–574.

17.

Future Institute Today. 2019 tech trends report. Future Institute Today 2019, https://futuretodayinstitute.com/2019-tech-trends/ (2019, accessed 14 June 2019).

18.

Gov.uk. Funding for £84 million for artificial intelligence and robotics research and smart energy innovation announced. London: UK Government, 2017.

19.

Bone

Gomes

Etkind

, et al. What is the impact of population ageing on the future provision of end-of-life care? Population-based projections of place of death. Palliat Med 2017; 32: 329–336.

20.

National Advisory Group on Health Information Technology in England: Department of Health. Making IT work: harnessing the power of health information technology to improve care in England, 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/using-information-technology-to-improve-the-nhs/making-it-work-harnessing-the-power-of-health-information-technology-to-improve-care-in-england

21.

Sturgeon

Payne

Mason

, et al. Robotic technology and palliative care education: the development of a ‘nao robot’ computer program. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2017; 7: A2–A3.

22.

The World Cafe. World cafe method, http://www.theworldcafe.com/key-concepts-resources/world-cafe-method/# (2018, accessed 25 April 2018).

23.

Taylor

RH.

A perspective on medical robotics. Proc IEEE 2006; 94: 1652–1664.

24.

Griffin

WR.

Where are the robots? Good and bad news for automated cleaning. Health Facil Manage 2001; 14(6): 42–45.

25.

Núñez

Navaraj

Polat

, et al. Energy-autonomous, flexible, and transparent tactile skin. Adv Funct Mater 2017; 27: 1606287.

26.

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). Graphene ‘electronic skin’ could harness solar power to return sense of touch to amputees, https://epsrc.ukri.org/newsevents/news/grapheneskin/ (2018, accessed 7 November 2018).

27.

Raudaschl

Quantum computing and health care, https://blogs.bmj.com/technology/2017/11/03/quantum-computing-and-health-care/ (2017, accessed 7 November 2018).

28.

Palattella

Dohler

Grieco

, et al. Internet of Things in the 5G era: enablers, architecture, and business models. IEEE J Sel Area Comm 2016; 34: 510–527.

29.

House of Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. AI in the UK: ready, willing and able? 2018, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldai/100/100.pdf

30.

Haghi

Thurow

Stoll

Wearable devices in medical Internet of Things: scientific research and commercially available devices. Healthc Inform Res 2017; 23(1): 4–15.

31.

Gerling

Hebesberger

Dondrup

, et al. Robot deployment in long-term care: case study on using a mobile robot to support physiotherapy. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2016; 49(4): 288–297.

32.

Brose

Weber

Salatin

, et al. The role of assistive robotics in the lives of persons with disability. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 89(6): 509–521.

33.

Bedaf

Gelderblom

De Witte

Overview and categorization of robots supporting independent living of elderly people: what activities do they support and how far have they developed. Assist Technol 2015; 27(2): 88–100.

34.

Cooper

Dicianno

Brewer

, et al. A perspective on intelligent devices and environments in medical rehabilitation. Med Eng Phys 2008; 30(10): 1387–1398.

35.

Clotet

Martinez

Moreno

, et al. Assistant Personal Robot (APR): conception and application of a tele-operated assisted living robot. Sensors 2016; 16(5): E610.

36.

Werner

Assessing user needs and requirements for assistive robots at home. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 217: 174–179.

37.

Schweitzer

Hoerbst

Robotic assistance in medication management: development and evaluation of a prototype. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016; 225: 422–426.

38.

Hall

Backonja

Painter

, et al. Acceptance and perceived usefulness of robots to assist with activities of daily living and healthcare tasks. Assist Technol 2019; 31: 133–140.

39.

Katz

Tele-care robot for assisting independent senior citizens who live at home. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 217: 288–294.

40.

Korchut

Szklener

Abdelnour

, et al. Challenges for service robots – requirements of elderly adults with cognitive impairments. Front Neurol 2017; 8: 228.

41.

Costa

Martinez-Martin

Cazorla

, et al. PHAROS – PHysical Assistant RObot System. Sensors 2018; 18(8): 2633.

42.

Rantanen

Parkkari

Leikola

, et al. An in-home advanced robotic system to manage elderly home-care patients’ medications: a pilot safety and usability study. Clin Ther 2017; 39(5): 1054–1061.

43.

Lukasik

Tobis

Wieczorowska-Tobis

, et al. Could robots help older people with age-related nutritional problems? Opinions of potential users. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15(11): 2535.

44.

Tobis

Cylkowska-Nowak

Wieczorowska-Tobis

, et al. Occupational therapy students’ perceptions of the role of robots in the care for older people living in the community. Occup Ther Int 2017; 2017: 9592405.

45.

O’Neill

Pairing new approaches with conventional cleaning to improve hospital infection control. Occup Health Saf 2013; 82(8): 14–16.

46.

Rodriguez-Gonzalez

Herranz-Alonso

Escudero-Vilaplana

, et al. Robotic dispensing improves patient safety, inventory management, and staff satisfaction in an outpatient hospital pharmacy. J Eval Clin Pract 2019; 25: 28–35.

47.

Holanda

Silva

PMM

Amorim

, et al. Robotic assisted gait as a tool for rehabilitation of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2017; 14(1): 126.

48.

Karimi

MT.

Robotic rehabilitation of spinal cord injury individual. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2013; 15(1): 1–7.

49.

Stephenson

Lockwood

Effectiveness of robotic assisted rehabilitation for mobility and functional ability in adult stroke patients: a systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2017; 15: 39–48.

50.

Sivathondan

Jayne

DG.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2018; 100: 42–53.

51.

Phung

Lee

BR.

Recent advancements of robotic surgery for kidney cancer. Asian J Endosc Surg 2018; 11(4): 300–307.

52.

Wang

Sosa

JA.

Thyroid surgery for differentiated thyroid cancer – recent advances and future directions. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2018; 14(11): 670–683.

53.

Korsholm

Sorensen

Mogensen

, et al. A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies. Health Econ Rev 2018; 8(1): 21.

54.

Brodie

Vasdev

The future of robotic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2018; 100: 4–13.

55.

Zhang

, et al. Development of a biomedical micro/nano robot for drug delivery. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2015; 15(4): 3126–3129.

56.

Shibata

Wada

Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly – a mini-review. Gerontology 2011; 57(4): 378–386.

57.

Moyle

Jones

Murfield

, et al. Use of a robotic seal as a therapeutic tool to improve dementia symptoms: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017; 18(9): 766–773.

58.

Birks

Bodak

Barlas

, et al. Robotic seals as therapeutic tools in an aged care facility: a qualitative study. J Aging Res 2016; 2016: 8569602.

59.

McGlynn

Kemple

Mitzner

, et al. Understanding the potential of PARO for healthy older adults. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2017; 100: 33–47.

60.

Jones

Moyle

Murfield

, et al. Does cognitive impairment and agitation in dementia influence intervention effectiveness? Findings from a cluster-randomized-controlled trial with the therapeutic robot, PARO. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018; 19(7): 623–626.

61.

Ishiguro

Majima

Utilization of communication robot in patient education. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016; 225: 913–914.

62.

Pennisi

Tonacci

Tartarisco

, et al. Autism and social robotics: a systematic review. Autism Res 2016; 9(2): 165–183.

63.

Bric

Lumbard

Frelich

, et al. Current state of virtual reality simulation in robotic surgery training: a review. Surg Endosc 2016; 30(6): 2169–2178.

64.

Shaw

Abbott

MA.

High-fidelity simulation: teaching end-of-life care. Nurse Educ Today 2017; 49: 8–11.

65.

Dodds

Martyn

Brown

Infection prevention and control challenges of using a therapeutic robot. Nurs Older People 2018; 30(3): 34–40.

66.

Hendrich

Bistry

Zhang

Architecture and software design for a service robot in an elderly-care scenario. Engineering 2015; 1: 27–35.

67.

Broadbent

Stafford

MacDonald

Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot 2009; 1: 319.

68.

Cresswell

Cunningham-Burley

Sheikh

Health care robotics: qualitative exploration of key challenges and future directions. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20(7): e10410.

69.

Flandorfer

Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int J Popul Res 2012; 2012: 829835.

70.

Cath

Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 2018; 376(2133): 20180080.

71.

Howard

Borenstein

The ugly truth about ourselves and our robot creations: the problem of bias and social inequity. Sci Eng Ethics 2018; 24(5): 1521–1536.

72.

Bromwich

JE.

Why do we hurt robots?

New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/style/why-do-people-hurt-robots.html (2019, accessed 11 April 2019).

73.

Sharkey

Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 2012; 14: 27–40.

74.

Kortner

Ethical challenges in the use of social service robots for elderly people. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2016; 49(4): 303–307.

75.

Mansouri

Goher

Hosseini

SE.

Ethical framework of assistive devices: review and reflection. Robotics Biomim 2017; 4(1): 19.

76.

Nwosu

Collins

Mason

Big Data analysis to improve care for people living with serious illness: the potential to use new emerging technology in palliative care. Palliat Med 2018; 32(1): 164–166.

77.

World Health Organization. World population ageing. 2017, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2017_Highlights.pdf

78.

Bland

China’s robot revolution. Financial Times 2016, https://www.ft.com/content/1dbd8c60-0cc6-11e6-ad80-67655613c2d6?mhq5j=e1

79.

Cockburn

Writing effective use cases. Addison-Wesley, 2001. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TUZsAQAAQBAJ

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB

0.10 MB

Robotic technology for palliative and supportive care: Strengths,weaknesses,opportunities and threats

Abstract

Background:

Aim:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Background

Aim

Method

SWOT development

Results

Strengths of robotic technology

Opportunities in palliative care

Weaknesses

Threats

Discussion

Main findings and new knowledge

How this work relates to current developments

Limitations

Future opportunities and research possibilities

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

857628_supp_mat – Supplemental material for Robotic technology for palliative and supportive care: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Supplemental Material

857628_supp_mat_table – Supplemental material for Robotic technology for palliative and supportive care: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Author contributions

Declaration of conflicting interests

Ethical approval

Funding

Supplemental material

ORCID iD

References

Supplementary Material