Human-Centered Reflections on Care Robots: A Comparative Study of Caregiver Perspectives
Authors: Laura Londoño, Klaus Baumann, Abhinav Valada, Markus Langer
Organizations: Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Germany. · Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Germany. · Department of Theology, University of Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
Care robots are increasingly being introduced into healthcare settings, raising important questions about their acceptance and ethical implementation. To better understand these challenges, this study investigates caregivers' perceptions of four categories of care robots: delivering supplies, helping patients into bed, monitoring vital signs, and assisting with mobility. We conducted a mixed-methods study employing a mixed-factorial design in which 298 caregivers from the United States, Mexico, and Chile evaluated all four robot categories. Quantitative measures integrated constructs from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, the Cognitive-Affective-Normative model, and overall acceptance ratings. Qualitative data were collected through open-ended questions and analyzed using a literature-informed ethical framework. The results indicate that participants across countries generally evaluated care robots positively, particularly for logistical and physically demanding tasks rather than those requiring intensive interpersonal interaction. The qualitative findings provide further insight into stakeholders' views of the ethical implications of care robot use. Participants emphasized potential benefits such as reduced workload, lower risk, and greater patient autonomy, while also expressing concerns about dependability, the need for human oversight, and potential job displacement. Although many ethical concerns were shared across countries, participants differed in how they interpreted and prioritized them. These findings advance a context-sensitive and socially informed understanding of responsible design and implementation of care robots.
Addressing the global caregiver shortage through socially assistive robots necessitates a deep understanding of their psychological and physiological impacts on older adults during human-robot interaction (HRI). This study addresses whether social robots can serve as effective interaction partners compared to humans, and if "positive prompts" can similarly enhance these interactions. We conducted a comparative study with 35 participants (aged 70+). Our multi-modal analysis, integrating facial expression data, heart rate variability, and subjective questionnaires, revealed no significant differences in overall stress levels between human and robot interactions. Facial expression analysis confirmed that the robot was accepted as a valid interaction partner, while physiological data showed slightly lower heart rates during robot interactions, suggesting a more relaxed state compared to human-led sessions. These findings indicate that social robots can engage older adults without inducing psychological strain and are capable of alleviating caregiver burden by performing structured tasks, such as health-sensing surveys. Future work should address the identified "appearance-content mismatch" in robot design to facilitate even more natural and effective interactions.
Hana Yamamoto, Carlotta Julia Mayer, Charlotte Raithel +5
The rapid advancement of robotics is reshaping what it means for humans and robots to coexist -- through expanded capabilities, more intuitive interactions, and deeper integration into real-world workflows. Beyond sharing physical space, this coexistence is increasingly characterized by organizational embeddedness, temporal evolution, social situatedness, and open-ended uncertainty. Because such coexistence extends beyond a single encounter, understanding healthcare robots requires looking beyond initial acceptance to how stakeholders' perceptions evolve through continued engagement. Yet, prior work has largely relied on single-point snapshots of attitudes and acceptance, offering limited insight into coexistence as a long-term, dynamic process. We address these gaps through in-depth follow-up interviews with nine participants from a 14-week co-design study on healthcare robots. We identify the human perception space, which includes four interpretive dimensions (i.e., degree of decomposition, source of evidence, scope of reasoning, and temporal orientation). We enrich the conceptual framework of human-robot coexistence by conceptualizing the mutual relationship between the human perception space and the robot design space as a co-evolving loop, in which human needs, design decisions, situated interpretations, and social mediation continuously reshape one another over time. Building on this, we propose considerate human-robot coexistence, arguing that humans act not only as design contributors but also as interpreters and mediators who actively shape how robots are understood and integrated across deployment stages. Our related prior work and supplementary materials, including the interview protocol, are available at https://byc-sophie.github.io/considerate-human-robot-coexistence/
Demand for older-adult and patient care is growing rapidly as populations age worldwide. Foundation models are increasingly being integrated into robots and interactive agents, with the promise of more flexible communication and personalized assistance. However, care settings require reliable and workflow-compatible systems with accountable human oversight, and it remains unclear whether current embodied systems can translate technical advances into clinical impact. This Perspective synthesizes foundation model-based care robots across three areas: design features, user experience, and evidence for care-related outcomes. Current systems most commonly use foundation models as conversational and reasoning layers within voice-centered socially assistive embodiments, while multimodal grounding and physical autonomy remain limited. Empirical evaluations report positive usability and engagement benefits, but reliability failures persist across the interaction pipeline such as hallucinations and conversational breakdowns. Evidence for care impact remains concentrated in proximal outcomes such as cognitive engagement and participation, with limited evidence for validated clinical or care-related changes. We argue that future research should transition toward care-specific evaluation standards, accountable autonomy, and integration into care workflows to support more responsive and responsible care technologies.