Socially Assistive Devices in Healthcare-a Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence from an Ethical Perspective.

IF 2.7 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Joschka Haltaufderheide, Annika Lucht, Christoph Strünck, Jochen Vollmann
{"title":"Socially Assistive Devices in Healthcare-a Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence from an Ethical Perspective.","authors":"Joschka Haltaufderheide,&nbsp;Annika Lucht,&nbsp;Christoph Strünck,&nbsp;Jochen Vollmann","doi":"10.1007/s11948-022-00419-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Socially assistive devices such as care robots or companions have been advocated as a promising tool in elderly care in Western healthcare systems. Ethical debates indicate various challenges. An important part of the ethical evaluation is to understand how users interact with these devices and how interaction influences users' perceptions and their ability to express themselves. In this review, we report and critically appraise findings of non-comparative empirical studies with regard to these effects from an ethical perspective.Electronic databases and other sources were queried using a comprehensive search strategy generating 9851 records. Studies were screened independently by two authors. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For 22 reports on 21 datasets using a non-comparative design a narrative synthesis was performed.Data shows positive findings in regard to attitudes and emotional reactions of users. Varying perception of a social relation and social presence are the most commonly observed traits of interaction. Users struggle with understanding technical complexities while functionality of the devices is limited. This leads to a behavioral alignment of users towards the requirements of the devices to be able to make use of them.This evidence adds to three important ethical debates on the use of socially assistive devices in healthcare in regard to (1) reliability of existing empirical evidence to inform normative judgements, (2) ethical significance of the social presence of devices and (3) user autonomy in regard to behavioral alignment.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"29 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9894988/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00419-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Socially assistive devices such as care robots or companions have been advocated as a promising tool in elderly care in Western healthcare systems. Ethical debates indicate various challenges. An important part of the ethical evaluation is to understand how users interact with these devices and how interaction influences users' perceptions and their ability to express themselves. In this review, we report and critically appraise findings of non-comparative empirical studies with regard to these effects from an ethical perspective.Electronic databases and other sources were queried using a comprehensive search strategy generating 9851 records. Studies were screened independently by two authors. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For 22 reports on 21 datasets using a non-comparative design a narrative synthesis was performed.Data shows positive findings in regard to attitudes and emotional reactions of users. Varying perception of a social relation and social presence are the most commonly observed traits of interaction. Users struggle with understanding technical complexities while functionality of the devices is limited. This leads to a behavioral alignment of users towards the requirements of the devices to be able to make use of them.This evidence adds to three important ethical debates on the use of socially assistive devices in healthcare in regard to (1) reliability of existing empirical evidence to inform normative judgements, (2) ethical significance of the social presence of devices and (3) user autonomy in regard to behavioral alignment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

医疗保健中的社会辅助装置——从伦理角度对经验证据的系统回顾。
社会辅助设备,如护理机器人或同伴,已被提倡作为一个有前途的工具在老年护理在西方医疗保健系统。伦理辩论表明了各种挑战。道德评估的一个重要部分是了解用户如何与这些设备交互,以及交互如何影响用户的感知和表达自己的能力。在这篇综述中,我们从伦理的角度报道并批判性地评价了关于这些影响的非比较实证研究的发现。使用生成9851条记录的综合搜索策略查询电子数据库和其他来源。研究由两位作者独立筛选。评估了研究的方法学质量。采用非比较设计对21个数据集的22份报告进行叙事综合。数据显示,在用户的态度和情绪反应方面有积极的发现。对社会关系和社会存在的不同感知是互动中最常见的特征。用户很难理解技术的复杂性,而设备的功能是有限的。这将导致用户的行为与设备的需求保持一致,以便能够使用它们。这一证据增加了关于在医疗保健中使用社会辅助设备的三个重要伦理辩论,即:(1)现有经验证据的可靠性,以告知规范性判断,(2)设备的社会存在的伦理意义,以及(3)关于行为一致性的用户自主权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信