Significant challenges when introducing care robots in Swedish elder care

References

• European Commission. The 2018 ageing report: economic and budgetary projections for the EU Member States (2016–2070); 2018. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip079_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Global research, innovation and education in assistive technology: great summit 2017 report. WHO; 2017. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/259746/WHO-EMP-IAU-2017.16eng.pdf;jsessionid=66BF73C036CC4DB7841AD08C7DE1E9D7?sequence=1.
   Google Scholar
• The National Board of Health and Welfare. E-hälsa och Välfärdsteknik i kommunerna [E-health and welfare technology within municipalities]. Stockholm; 2019. Available from: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/ovrigt/2019-5-10.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Glende S, Conrad I, Krezdorn L, et al. Increasing the acceptance of assistive robots for older people through marketing strategies based on stakeholders needs. Int J Soc Robotics. 2016;8(3):355–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goeldner M, Herstatt C, Tietze F. The emergence of care robotics — a patent and publication analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015;92:115–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang GZ, Bellingham J, Dupont PE, et al. The grand challenges of science robotics. Sci Robot. 2018;3(14):eaar7650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vercelli A, Rainero I, Ciferri L, et al. Robots in elderly care. Digit Cult. 2018;2(2):37–50.
   Google Scholar
• Khosravi P, Ghapanchi AH. Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: a systematic literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2016;85(1):17–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kachouie R, Sedighadeli S, Khosla R, et al. Socially assistive robots in elderly care: a mixed-method systematic literature review. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2014;30(5):369–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangasniemi M, Karki S, Colley N, et al. The use of robots and other automated devices in nurses' work: an integrative review. Int J Nurs Pract. 2019;25(4):e12739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson J, Orviska M, Hunady J. People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly. Int J Soc Robotics. 2017;9(2):199–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu YH, Fassert C, Rigaud AS. Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2012;54(1):121–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union. Välfärdsteknik för trygghet, hälsa och utveckling i arbetet. [Welfare technology for safety, health and development at work]; 2019. Available from: https://www.kommunal.se/sites/default/files/valfardsteknik_for_trygghet_halsa_och_utveckling_i_arbetet_kommunal_2019_webb.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lee C, Coughlin JF. PERSPECTIVE: older adults’ adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;32(5):747–759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharkey A, Sharkey N. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol. 2012;14(1):27–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission and European Parliament. Eurobarometer 87.1. TNS statement [manufacturer]. GESIS data archive, Cologne ZA6861 Data file version 1.2.0; 2017. Available from: https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/SDesc2.asp?DB=E&no=6861
   Google Scholar
• Bedaf S, Draper H, Gelderblom G-J, et al. Can a service robot which supports independent living of older people disobey a command? The views of older people, informal carers and professional caregivers on the acceptability of robots. Int J Soc Robotics. 2016;8(3):409–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eftring H, Frennert S. Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;49(4):274–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins S, Draper H. Care, monitoring, and companionship: views on care robots from older people and their carers. Int J Soc Robotics. 2015;7(5):673–683.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedaf S, Marti P, Amirabdollahian F, et al. A multi-perspective evaluation of a service robot for seniors: the voice of different stakeholders. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(6):592–599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robotics. 2009;1(4):319–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konttila J, Siira H, Kyngäs H, et al. Healthcare professionals' competence in digitalisation: a systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(5–6):745–761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsen ER, Dugstad J, Eide H, et al. Exploring resistance to implementation of welfare technology in municipal healthcare services - a longitudinal case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent E, Tamagawa R, Patience A, et al. Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas J Ageing. 2012;31(2):115–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frennert S, Baudin K. The concept of welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare. Disabil Rehabil. 2019:1–8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1661035
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Uppdrag angående information om digitala tjänster och teknik inom socialtjänst och hemsjukvård [Assignments regarding information on digital services and technology in social services and home care] (Uppdrag till Myndigheten för delaktighet, S2014/1398/FST, S2014/8960/FST). Stockholm; 2014. Available from: http://www.regeringen.se/regeringsuppdrag/2014/02/s20141398fst-/.
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish Parliament. Välfärdsteknik i äldreomsorgen. [Welfare technology in elderly care]. Kommittédirektiv 2018. 82. Stockholm; 2018. Available from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/kommittedirektiv/valfardsteknik-i-aldreomsorgen_H6B182.
   Google Scholar
• The National Board of Health and Welfare. Investeringar i välfärdsteknik i omsorgen. [Investments in welfare technology in social care]. Stockholm; 2018. Available from: https://statsbidrag.socialstyrelsen.se/kommuner/statsbidrag-till-investeringar-i-valfardsteknik-i-omsorgen.
   Google Scholar
• Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish research council. Good research practice. Stockholm; 2017. Available from: https://www.vr.se/english/analysis/reports/our-reports/2017-08-31-good-research-practice.html.
   Google Scholar
• Declaration of Helsinki World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Edinburgh, Scotland; 2000. Available from: https://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/79(4)373.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. 2015. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 4th ed. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson-Pajala RM, Thommes K, Hoppe JA, et al. Improved knowledge changes the mindset: older adults’ perceptions of care robots. In: Zhou J, Salvendy G, editors, Human aspects of IT for the aged population: design for the elderly and technology acceptance. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 212–227.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson-Pajala R-M, Thommes K, Hoppe JA, et al. Care robot orientation – what, who and how: potential users’ perspective. Int J Soc Robot. 2020:1–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00619-y
   Google Scholar
• Tuisku O, Pekkarinen S, Hennala L, et al. Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”: The publicity around a robotic innovation in elderly care. Info Technol People. 2019;32(1):47–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuisku O, Pekkarinen S, Hennala L, et al. as, H. 2017. Public discussion on robotic innovations in Finnish elderly care. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Serviceology ICServ; 2017 July 12–14; Vienna.
   Google Scholar
• Taipale S, DeLuca F, Sarrica M, et al. Robot shift from industrial production to social reproduction. In Vincent J, Taipale S, Sapio B, Lugano G, Fortunati L., editors. Social robots from a human perspective. Springer International Publishing; 2015. p.11–24.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson C, Svanberg C, Müllersdorf M. Using a robotic act in dementia care -a pilotstudy. J Gerontol Nurs. 2015;41(10):46–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melkas H, Hennala L, Pekkarinen S, et al. Human impact assessment of robot implementation in Finnish elderly care. Proceedings of the International Conference on Serviceology; 2016; 202–206.
   Google Scholar
• Shibata T. Therapeutic seal robot as biofeedback medical device: qualitative and quantitative evaluations of robot therapy in dementia care. Proc IEEE. 2012;100(8):2527–2538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolbring G, Yumakulov S. Social robots: views of staff of a disability service organization. Int J of Soc Robotics. 2014;6(3):457–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maalouf N, Sidaoui A, Elhajj IH, et al. Robotics in nursing: a scoping review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2018;50(6):590–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ienca M, Jotterand F, Vică C, et al. Social and assistive robotics in dementia care: ethical recommendations for research and practice. Int J Soc Robotics. 2016;8(4):565–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharts-Hopko N. The coming revolution in personal care robotics: what does it mean for nurses? Nurs Adm Q. 2014;38(1):5–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swedish Society of Nursing. Strategy for nurses’. eHealth Development work. Stockholm, 2019. Available from: https://www.swenurse.se/globalassets/01-svensk-sjukskoterskeforening/publikationer-svensk-sjukskoterskeforening/e-halsa/strategi-for-e-halsa-engelska-2019-till-webb-.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. Report with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics. (2015/2103/INL); 2017. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005_EN.html.
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish Internet Foundation. Svenskarna och internet. [The Swedes and the Internet]; 2018. Available from: https://internetstiftelsen.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2018.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Nordic Innovation. Strongholds and qualities of the nordic health tech ecosystem. Nordic solutions to global challenges. Oslo; 2018. Available from: https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1293369/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Handlingsplan för samverkan vid genomförandet av Vision e-hälsa 2025. [Action plan for collaboration in the implementation of Vision e-health 2025]; 2017. Available from: https://www.regeringen.se/491b30/globalassets/regeringen/dokument/socialdepartementet/fokhalsa-och-sjukvard/handlingsplan-for-samverkan-vid-genomforande-av-vision-e-halsa-2025-20172019.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bedaf S, Gelderblom GJ, De Witte L. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turja T, Van Aerschot L, Särkikoski T, et al. Finnish healthcare professionals' attitudes towards robots: reflections on a population sample. Nurs Open. 2018;5(3):300–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spånt Enbuske A. Digitalisation, work environment and personal integrity at work. Transfer. 2019;25(2):235–242.
   Google Scholar
• Archibald MM, Barnard A. Futurism in nursing: technology, robotics and the fundamentals of care. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(11–12):2473–2480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnes B. Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction. Int J Op Prod Manag. 2004;24(9):886–902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Thiele Schwarz U, Hasson H. Implementering-verktyget som ser till att innovation och kontext fungerar ihop. [the Implementation-Tool That Ensures That Innovation and Context Work Together]. Läkartidningen. 2019;116:FTS3.
   Google Scholar
• Krick T, Huter K, Domhoff D, et al. Digital technology and nursing care: a scoping review on acceptance, effectiveness and efficiency studies of informal and formal care technologies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):400.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, et al. Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robotics. 2009;1(1):95–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York (NY): Free press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Moyle W, Jones C, Pu L, et al. Applying user-centred research design and evidence to develop and guide the use of technologies, including robots, in aged care. Contemp Nurse. 2018;54(1):1–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Soler Á, Facal D, Diaz-Orueta U, et al. Inclusion of service robots in the daily lives of frail older users: a step-by-step definition procedure on users' requirements. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018;74:191–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zander V, Johansson-Pajala R-M, Gustafsson C. Methods to evaluate perspectives of safety, independence, activity, and participation in older persons using welfare technology: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(4):373–393. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1574919
   Google Scholar
• Kivisaari S, Lovio R, Väyrynen E. System innovation and the transition to sustainability. In: Elzen B, Geels FW, Green K, editors. Theory, evidence and policy managing experiments for transition: examples of societal embedding in energy and health care sectors. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; 2004. p. 223–250.
   Google Scholar