Overtrust of Pediatric Health-Care Robots: A Preliminary Survey of Parent Perspectives
Abstract
Numerous types of robots are being interwoven into the health-care system, including rehabilitative devices for use with pediatric populations. Yet a key ethical concern is that pediatric patients, their parents, and other caregivers might begin to overtrust robotic technology, possibly resulting in a patient being harmed or the technology adopted prematurely. To gain insight into the issue, our research team conducted a study examining the potential of overtrust in pediatric robotics. This article discusses results from a survey of parents who have at least one child with a movement disability. The survey's focus is on robotic exoskeletons, which represent the most viable of the currently available robotic technologies in terms of being adopted into the home as a clinically validated rehabilitative device for both adults and children. More than 62% of respondents indicated they would typically or completely trust their child to handle risky situations with an exoskeleton, even though the technology may not be designed for such situations. We conclude with suggestions for future research directions on the problem of overtrust in health-care robotics.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Over-reliance on advice can be dangerous in high-risk settings like diagnostic decision-making, especially when the advice is inaccurate.
“However, for high-risk settings like diagnostic decision-making, over-reliance on advice can be dangerous and steps should be taken to minimize it, especially when the advice is inaccurate33,34.”
From Do as AI say: susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Borenstein, J., Wagner, A. R., & Howard, A.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46-54
- ISSN
- 1070-9932 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-223X
- OpenAlex
- W2794173885
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 7.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- overtrust, parental trust, robotic exoskeleton, rehabilitation, mobility impairment, ethical considerations, home-based rehabilitation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review