Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
[Digital assistive systems to support everyday functioning: first experiences with telepresence robotics in home-based stroke care].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Haug Sonja, Weber Karsten, Currle Edda
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Digital assistive systems can support everyday functioning of people needing help by providing information, supporting therapeutic processes and enabling communication and social participation. Telepresence robotics (TPR) comprises physically embodied, mobile systems that can be used in domestic environments. So far, the technology has not yet been widely implemented in healthcare practice. This study aimed to examine the expectations, experiences and acceptance of TPR among individuals with stroke, their relatives and healthcare staff.
METHODS: Before (t1) and after (t2) a 24-week trial phase involving two TPR devices (field phase 2021-2023), patients and relatives were surveyed using a standardised questionnaire (t1: 48 and 53 respectively; t2: 39 and 50). A cross-sectional survey involved 31 healthcare professionals. The data were analysed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. Additionally, personal interviews with patients and relatives were analysed using structuring qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.
RESULTS: The initially high expectations associated with TPR regarding independence, safety, communication and relief for relatives in everyday life were often not met. None of the systems were considered a convincing aid for everyday life. Autonomous mobility and voice assistance proved to be of limited help. The simple and flexible tablet solution was preferred over TPR.
DISCUSSION: While telepresence robotics has the potential to support outpatient care, it is not yet sufficiently adapted to patients' needs and home environments. Technical limitations, dependence on family members and the higher acceptance of simpler technologies highlight the need for further development for a widespread implementation of assistive systems.
METHODS: Before (t1) and after (t2) a 24-week trial phase involving two TPR devices (field phase 2021-2023), patients and relatives were surveyed using a standardised questionnaire (t1: 48 and 53 respectively; t2: 39 and 50). A cross-sectional survey involved 31 healthcare professionals. The data were analysed using descriptive and bivariate statistics. Additionally, personal interviews with patients and relatives were analysed using structuring qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.
RESULTS: The initially high expectations associated with TPR regarding independence, safety, communication and relief for relatives in everyday life were often not met. None of the systems were considered a convincing aid for everyday life. Autonomous mobility and voice assistance proved to be of limited help. The simple and flexible tablet solution was preferred over TPR.
DISCUSSION: While telepresence robotics has the potential to support outpatient care, it is not yet sufficiently adapted to patients' needs and home environments. Technical limitations, dependence on family members and the higher acceptance of simpler technologies highlight the need for further development for a widespread implementation of assistive systems.