Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN · 2026
Educational Robotics in Health Care: A Scoping Review of Students' Attitudes, Perceptions, and Beliefs.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Habeck Jessica, Knepple Carney Amy, McArthur Erin, Chung Seon Yoon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Advances in robotics are transforming health sciences education and helping to prepare students for future careers. Understanding students' perceptions, comfort, and attitudes towards these tools is important to help enhance learning.
METHODS: Using the JBI scoping review protocol and the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a comprehensive keyword search of the literature in CINAHL, ERIC, Education Source, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, resulting in 576 unique records. Articles with a health care/health sciences student population, a physical robot, and an assessment of student attitudes were included.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies encompassing a diverse group of participants, including nursing students, medical students, and multidisciplinary students in various fields such as communication, computer science, nutrition, and psychology, were included in this review. Robot types studied across these studies included: telepresence robots, surgical robots, humanoid robots, nonhumanoid robots, robot animal companions, and other robot classifications (social, service, and companion). Students consistently reported positive perceptions with increased satisfaction with robots, valuing their benefits for learning, stress reduction, and career enhancement interest.
DISCUSSION: Further investigation of how students from various disciplines use educational robots and factors influencing their engagement will allow educators to tailor educational robotics and better serve our diverse student populations.
METHODS: Using the JBI scoping review protocol and the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a comprehensive keyword search of the literature in CINAHL, ERIC, Education Source, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, resulting in 576 unique records. Articles with a health care/health sciences student population, a physical robot, and an assessment of student attitudes were included.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies encompassing a diverse group of participants, including nursing students, medical students, and multidisciplinary students in various fields such as communication, computer science, nutrition, and psychology, were included in this review. Robot types studied across these studies included: telepresence robots, surgical robots, humanoid robots, nonhumanoid robots, robot animal companions, and other robot classifications (social, service, and companion). Students consistently reported positive perceptions with increased satisfaction with robots, valuing their benefits for learning, stress reduction, and career enhancement interest.
DISCUSSION: Further investigation of how students from various disciplines use educational robots and factors influencing their engagement will allow educators to tailor educational robotics and better serve our diverse student populations.