Journal of gerontological nursing · 2026
A Humanoid Companion Robot in Residential Memory Care: Staff Perspectives During Early Implementation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Rayo Jessica, Shen Lingyi, Truong Duong, Kitnikone Sunnie, Fritz Roschelle, Wung Shu-Fen
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To examine memory support staff perspectives during early integration of a humanoid companion robot in a residential memory care neighborhood.
METHOD: A qualitative descriptive design was used in a memory care neighborhood in Northern California. Data were collected from 15 staff participants through one pre-implementation focus group and three follow-up individual interviews. Interviews were conducted before and during the first 8 weeks of the robot's introduction and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Six interdisciplinary team members performed thematic analysis through collaborative coding and team-based comparisons.
RESULTS: Three themes emerged: Dynamics of Implementation Sense-Making, Ambivalent Imaginaries of the Robot, and Situated Interaction Work and Operational Burden. Staff reported varied readiness, recognized promise and limitations, and emphasized the need for staff as ongoing intermediaries between the robot and residents during use.
CONCLUSION: Humanoid companion robots may support social engagement in memory care; however, effective implementation requires staff preparation, technological refinement, and alignment with person-centered care.
METHOD: A qualitative descriptive design was used in a memory care neighborhood in Northern California. Data were collected from 15 staff participants through one pre-implementation focus group and three follow-up individual interviews. Interviews were conducted before and during the first 8 weeks of the robot's introduction and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Six interdisciplinary team members performed thematic analysis through collaborative coding and team-based comparisons.
RESULTS: Three themes emerged: Dynamics of Implementation Sense-Making, Ambivalent Imaginaries of the Robot, and Situated Interaction Work and Operational Burden. Staff reported varied readiness, recognized promise and limitations, and emphasized the need for staff as ongoing intermediaries between the robot and residents during use.
CONCLUSION: Humanoid companion robots may support social engagement in memory care; however, effective implementation requires staff preparation, technological refinement, and alignment with person-centered care.