Abstract: Background: There has been a rapid increase in the population of senior citizens in many countries. The shortage of caregivers is becoming a pressing concern. Robots are being deployed in an attempt to fill this gap and reduce the workload of caregivers. This study explores how healthcare robots are perceived by trainee care professionals. Methods: A total of 2365 students at different vocational levels completed a questionnaire, rating ethical statements regarding beneficence, maleficence, justice, autonomy, utility, and use intentions with regard to three different types of robots (assistive, monitoring, and companion) along with six control variables: gender, age, school year, technical skills, interest in technology, and enjoying working with computers.
Through a qualitative examination, the moral evaluations of Dutch care professionals regarding healthcare robots for eldercare in terms of biomedical ethical principles and non-utility are researched. Results showed that care professionals primarily focused on maleficence (potential harm done by the robot), deriving from diminishing human contact. Worries about potential maleficence were more pronounced from intermediate compared to higher educated professionals. However, both groups deemed companion robots more beneficiary than devices that monitor and assist, which were deemed potentially harmful physically and psychologically. The perceived utility was not related to the professionals' moral stances, countering prevailing views. Increasing patient's autonomy by applying robot care was not part of the discussion and justice as a moral evaluation was rarely mentioned. Awareness of the care professionals' point of view is important for policymakers, educational institutes, and for developers of healthcare robots to tailor designs to the wants of older adults along with the needs of the much-undervalued eldercare professionals.
Background: Older adults are a rapidly growing group world-wide, requiring an increasing amount of healthcare. Technological innovations such as care robots may support the growing demand for care. However, hardly any studies address those who will most closely collaborate with care robots: the (trainee) healthcare professional. Methods: This study examined the moral considerations, perceptions of utility, and acceptance among trainee healthcare professionals toward different types of care robots in an experimental questionnaire design (N = 357). We also examined possible differences between participants’ intermediate and higher educational levels. Results: The results show that potential maleficence of care robots dominated the discussion in both educational groups. Assisting robots were seen as potentially the most maleficent. Both groups deemed companion robots least maleficent and most acceptable, while monitoring robots were perceived as least useful. Results further show that the acceptance of robots in care was more strongly associated with the participants’ moral considerations than with utility. Conclusions: Professional care education should include moral considerations and utility of robotics as emerging care technology. The healthcare and nursing students of today will collaborate with the robotic colleagues of tomorrow
LINK
