Comparison of Acceptance and Knowledge Transfer in Patient Information Before an MRI Exam Administered by Humanoid Robot Versus a Tablet Computer: A Randomized Controlled Study

Abstract

Purpose To investigate whether a humanoid robot in a clinical radiological setting is accepted as a source of information in conversations before MRI examinations of patients. In addition, the usability and the information transfer were compared with a tablet.

Methods Patients were randomly assigned to a robot or tablet group with their consent prior to MRI. The usability of both devices was compared with the extended System Usability Scale (SUS) and the information transfer with a knowledge query. Reasons for refusal were collected by a non-responder questionnaire.

Results At the University Hospital Halle 117 patients were included for participation. There was no statistically significant difference in gender and age. Of 18 non-responders, 4 refused to participate partly because of the robot; for another 3 the reason could not be clarified. The usability according to SUS score was different with statistical significance between the groups in the mean comparison and was one step higher for the tablet on the adjective scale. There was no statistically significant difference in knowledge transfer. On average, 8.41 of 9 questions were answered correctly.

Conclusion This study is the first application, in a clinical radiological setting, of a humanoid robot interacting with patients. Tablet and robot are suitable for information transfer in the context of MRI. In comparison to studies in which the willingness to interact with a robot in the health care sector was investigated, the willingness is significantly higher in the present study. This could be explained by the fact that it was a concrete use case that was understandable to the participants and not a hypothetical scenario. Thus, potentially high acceptance for further specific areas of application of robots in radiology can be assumed. The higher level of usability perceived in the tablet group can be explained by the fact that here the interface represents a form of operation that has been established for years in all population groups. More frequent exposure to robots could also improve the response in the future.

Key Points:

• patients accept humanoid robots in clinical radiologic situations

• at present they can only convey information as well as an inexpensive tablet

• future systems can relieve the burden on personnel.

Citation Format

• Stoevesandt D, Jahn P, Watzke S et al. Comparison of Acceptance and Knowledge Transfer in Patient Information Before an MRI Exam Administered by Humanoid Robot Versus a Tablet Computer: A Randomized Controlled Study. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 947 – 954

Key words

robotics - health communication - magnetic resonance imaging - information services - randomized controlled trial

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 27. Juli 2020

Angenommen: 13. Januar 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
10. Juni 2021

• Literatur

• 1 Bannat A, Gast J, Rehrl T. et al A Multimodal Human-Robot-Interaction Scenario: Working Together with an Industrial Robot. 5611. 2009: 303-311 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-02577-8_33
• 2 Cooper M, Keating D, Harwin W. et al Robots in the Classroom – Tools for Accessible Education. In: Assistive Technology on the Threshold of the New Millennium, Assistive Technology 1999: 448-452
• 3 Anderson RL, Gartner WB. When Robots and People Work Together. Robotics 1985; 1: 69-76 DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8493(85)90065-8.
• 4 Heyer C. Human-Robot Interaction and Future Industrial Robotics Applications. 2010: 4749-4754 DOI: 10.1109/IROS.2010.5651294
• 5 Moniz A, Krings BJ. Robots Working with Humans or Humans Working with Robots? Searching for Social Dimensions in New Human-Robot Interaction in Industry. Societies 2016; 6: 23 DOI: 10.3390/soc6030023.
• 6 Klein B, Graf B, Schlömer IF. et al Robotik in der Gesundheitswirtschaft. Einsatzfelder und Potenziale. Heidelberg: medhochzwei; 2018
• 7 Meißner A. Technisierung der professionellen Pflege. Einfluss. Wirkung. Veränderung. In: Hagemann T. Hrsg. Gestaltung des Sozial- und Gesundheitswesens im Zeitalter von Digitalisierung und technischer Assistenz. Forschung und Entwicklung in der Sozialwirtschaft. Nomos; 2017: 153-172 DOI: 10.5771/9783845279435-153
• 8 Boran M. Robot shop assistant Pepper makes US debut (18.12.2018). Im Internet (published 18.8.2016 access: 18.12.2018): https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/robot-shop-assistant-pepper-makes-us-debut-1.2757113
• 9 Kattan D. 4 real-life examples of robots in the workplace … that don’t want your job. Im Internet (Stand: 04.11.2018): https://immense.net/7048-24-real-life-examples-of-robots-in-the-workplace/
• 10 Arnold D, Wilson T. What doctor? Why AI and robotics will define New Health. Im Internet (Stand: 25.06.2018): https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/healthcare/publications/ai-robotics-new-health/ai-robotics-new-health.pdf
• 11 Newsroom Editor. Eurobarometer 2012 Survey on Public Attitudes towards Robots [Report]. Im Internet (Stand: 20.12.2020): https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/yearFrom/1974/yearTo/2012/surveyKy/1044
• 12 Loffredo D, Tavakkoli A. What are European Union Public Attitudes towards Robots?. Im Internet (Stand: 20.12.2020): https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b2ea/4ef7f21518f5f30fc0ca526bc3ff2fd6f855.pdf?_ga=2.41434722.1908020248.1579170775-143422030.1547635814
• 13 Broadbent E, Kuo IH, Lee YI. et al Attitudes and Reactions to a Healthcare Robot. Telemed J E Health 2010; 16: 608-613 DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0171.
• 14 Thys J. Robot receptionists introduced at hospitals in Belgium (09.11.2018). Im Internet (published 14.6.2016 access: 9.11.2018.2018): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/14/robot-receptionists-hospitals-belgium-pepper-humanoid
• 15 Alemi M, Ghanbarzadeh A, Meghdari A. et al Clinical Application of a Humanoid Robot in Pediatric Cancer Interventions. Int J of Soc Robotics 2016; 8: 743-759 DOI: 10.1007/s12369-015-0294-y.
• 16 Coeckelbergh M, Pop C, Simut R. et al A Survey of Expectations About the Role of Robots in Robot-Assisted Therapy for Children with ASD: Ethical Acceptability, Trust, Sociability, Appearance, and Attachment. Sci Eng Ethics 2016; 22: 47-65 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9649-x.
• 17 Blanson Henkemans OA, Bierman BPB, Janssen J. et al Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: a pilot study. Patient Educ Couns 2013; 92: 174-181 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.04.012.
• 18 Al-Taee MA, Kapoor R, Garrett C. et al Acceptability of Robot Assistant in Management of Type 1 Diabetes in Children. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016; 18: 551-554 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2015.0428.
• 19 Raatschen H, Alikhani B, Grosser A. et al Erste Erfahrungen mit einer digitalen Patientenaufklärung im klinischen Alltag. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2017; 189: S1-S124 DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1600183.
• 20 Schlechtweg PM, Hammon M, Giese D. et al iPad-based patient briefing for radiological examinations-a clinical trial. J Digit Imaging 2014; 27: 479-485 DOI: 10.1007/s10278-014-9688-x.
• 21 Brooke J. SUS. a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA. et al Hrsg. Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis; 1996: 189-194
• 22 Brooke J. SUS: A Retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies 2013; 8: 29-40
• 23 Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean. Adding an Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies 2009; 4: 114-123
• 24 Demir KA, Caymaz E, Elçi M. Issues in Integrating Robots into Organizations. 2017
• 25 Demir KA. Research Questions in Roboethics. Mugla Journal of Science and Technology 2017; 160-165 DOI: 10.22531/muglajsci.359648.
• 26 Borgi M, Cogliati-Dezza I, Brelsford V. et al Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 411 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411.
• 27 Luo LZ, Li H, Lee K. Are children's faces really more appealing than those of adults? Testing the baby schema hypothesis beyond infancy. J Exp Child Psychol 2011; 110: 115-124 DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.04.002.
• 28 Charness N, Boot WR. Aging and Information Technology Use. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2009; 18: 253-258 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01647.x.
• 29 Ellis D, Allaire JC. Modeling Computer Interest in Older Adults: the Role of Age, Education, Computer Knowledge, and Computer Anxiety. Hum Factors 1999; 41: 345-355 DOI: 10.1518/001872099779610996.