IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New colleague or gimmick hurdle? A user-centric scoping review of the barriers and facilitators of robots in hospitals

Author

Listed:
  • Mathias Kofoed Rasmussen
  • Anna Schneider-Kamp
  • Tobias Hyrup
  • Alessandro Godono

Abstract

Healthcare systems are confronted with a multitude of challenges, including the imperative to enhance accessibility, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and the quality of healthcare delivery. These challenges are exacerbated by current healthcare personnel shortages, prospects of future shortfalls, insufficient recruitment efforts, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, global viral concerns, and ageing populations. To address this escalating demand for healthcare services, healthcare systems are increasingly adopting robotic technology and artificial intelligence (AI), which promise to optimise costs, improve working conditions, and increase the quality of care. This article focuses on deepening our understanding of the barriers and facilitators associated with integrating robotic technologies in hospital environments. To this end, we conducted a scoping literature review to consolidate emerging themes pertaining to the experiences, viewpoints perspectives, and behaviours of hospital employees as professional users of robots in hospitals. Through screening 501 original research articles from Web-of-Science, we identified and reviewed in full-text 40 pertinent user-centric studies of the integration of robots into hospitals. Our review revealed and analysed 14 themes in-depth, of which we identified seven as barriers and seven as facilitators. Through a structuring of the barriers and facilitators, we reveal a notable misalignment between these barriers and facilitators: Finding that organisational aspects are at the core of most barriers, we suggest that future research should investigate the dynamics between hospital employees as professional users and the procedures and workflows of the hospitals as institutions, as well as the ambivalent role of anthropomorphisation of hospital robots, and emerging issues of privacy and confidentiality raised by increasingly communicative robots. Ultimately, this perspective on the integration of robots in hospitals transcends debates on the capabilities and limits of the robotic technology itself, shedding light on the complexity of integrating new technologies into hospital environments and contributing to an understanding of possible futures in healthcare innovation.Author summary: Healthcare systems are confronted with a multitude of challenges, including the imperative to enhance accessibility, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and the quality of healthcare delivery. These challenges are exacerbated by current healthcare personnel shortages, prospects of future shortfalls, insufficient recruitment efforts, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, global viral concerns, and ageing populations. To address this escalating demand for healthcare services, healthcare systems are increasingly adopting robotic technology and artificial intelligence (AI), which promise to optimise costs, improve working conditions, and increase the quality of care. This article identifies seven barriers and seven facilitators associated with integrating robotic technologies in hospital environments through a scoping review of the academic literature. As most barriers are rooted in organisational aspects, we suggest that researchers should investigate the dynamics between hospital employees and the procedures and workflows of the hospitals. They should also look into aspects such as users humanizing hospital robots and emerging issues of privacy and confidentiality raised by increasingly communicative robots to understand how robots can positively contribute to improving future healthcare systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathias Kofoed Rasmussen & Anna Schneider-Kamp & Tobias Hyrup & Alessandro Godono, 2024. "New colleague or gimmick hurdle? A user-centric scoping review of the barriers and facilitators of robots in hospitals," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-30, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000660
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000660
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000660
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000660&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000660?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider-Kamp, Anna & Fersch, Barbara, 2021. "Detached co-involvement in interactional care: Transcending temporality and spatiality through mHealth in a social psychiatry out-patient setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    2. L. G. Pee & Shan L. Pan & Lili Cui, 2019. "Artificial intelligence in healthcare robots: A social informatics study of knowledge embodiment," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(4), pages 351-369, April.
    3. Michael Barrett & Eivor Oborn & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2012. "Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1448-1466, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shaheer, Noman Ahmed & Li, Sali, 2020. "The CAGE around cyberspace? How digital innovations internationalize in a virtual world," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    2. Shengliang Zhang & Chaoying Huang & Xiaodong Li & Ai Ren, 2022. "Understanding Impacts of Service Robots with the Revised Gap Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Ruthanne Huising, 2014. "The Erosion of Expert Control Through Censure Episodes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1633-1661, December.
    4. Jiuh‐Biing Sheu & Tsan‐Ming Choi, 2023. "Can we work more safely and healthily with robot partners? A human‐friendly robot–human‐coordinated order fulfillment scheme," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(3), pages 794-812, March.
    5. Oliver Thomas & Simon Hagen & Ulrich Frank & Jan Recker & Lauri Wessel & Friedemann Kammler & Novica Zarvic & Ingo Timm, 2020. "Global Crises and the Role of BISE," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(4), pages 385-396, August.
    6. Ola Henfridsson & Youngjin Yoo, 2014. "The Liminality of Trajectory Shifts in Institutional Entrepreneurship," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 932-950, June.
    7. Masashi Goto, 2020. "Theorization of Institutional Change in the Rise of Artificial Intelligence," Discussion Paper Series DP2020-12, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    8. Andrew Shipilov & Frédéric C. Godart & Julien Clement, 2017. "Which boundaries? How mobility networks across countries and status groups affect the creative performance of organizations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1232-1252, June.
    9. Dan Zhang & Loo G. Pee & Shan L. Pan & Jingyuan Wang, 2024. "Information practices in data analytics for supporting public health surveillance," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(1), pages 79-93, January.
    10. Evans, Sarah & Scarbrough, Harry, 2014. "Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: ‘Bridging’ versus ‘blurring’ boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 119-127.
    11. Alaimo, Cristina & Kallinikos, Jannis, 2022. "Organizations decentered: data objects, technology and knowledge," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Ebru Dilan & Mehmet N. Aydin, 2019. "An Integrated Framework for Examining Innovation Alignment in Organizations," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 1-28, June.
    13. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    14. Omid Omidvar & Roman Kislov, 2016. "R&D Consortia As Boundary Organisations: Misalignment And Asymmetry Of Boundary Management," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-24, February.
    15. Kroezen, M. & Mistiaen, P. & van Dijk, L. & Groenewegen, P.P. & Francke, A.L., 2014. "Negotiating jurisdiction in the workplace: A multiple-case study of nurse prescribing in hospital settings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 107-115.
    16. Wang, Qiuchen & Liu, Hongyi & Ore, Fredrik & Wang, Lihui & Hauge, Jannicke Baalsrud & Meijer, Sebastiaan, 2023. "Multi-actor perspectives on human robotic collaboration implementation in the heavy automotive manufacturing industry - A Swedish case study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    17. Nikolova, Milena & Cnossen, Femke & Nikolaev, Boris, 2024. "Robots, meaning, and self-determination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(5).
    18. Makarius, Erin E. & Mukherjee, Debmalya & Fox, Joseph D. & Fox, Alexa K., 2020. "Rising with the machines: A sociotechnical framework for bringing artificial intelligence into the organization," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 262-273.
    19. Roy, Sanjit K. & Singh, Gaganpreet & Sadeque, Saalem & Gruner, Richard L., 2024. "Customer experience quality with social robots: Does trust matter?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Bongsug (Kevin) Chae, 2022. "Mapping the Evolution of Digital Business Research: A Bibliometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000660. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.