Cited by 147Social Robot Interaction and HRIPediatric Pain Management TechniquesMusic Therapy and Health

Social Robots for Hospitalized Children

Logan, Deirdre E., Breazeal, Cynthia, Goodwin, Matthew S., Jeong, Sooyeon, O’Connell, Brianna, Smith-Freedman, Duncan, Heathers, James, Weinstock, Peter·2019·Pediatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Social robots (SRs) are increasingly present in medical and educational contexts, but their use in inpatient pediatric settings has not been demonstrated in studies. In this study, we aimed to (1) describe the introduction of SR technology into the pediatric inpatient setting through an innovative partnership among a pediatric teaching hospital, robotics development, and computational behavioral science laboratories and (2) present feasibility and acceptability data. METHODS: Fifty-four children ages 3 to 10 years were randomly exposed to 1 of 3 interventions: (1) interactive SR teddy bear; (2) tablet-based avatar version of the bear; or (3) plush teddy bear with human presence. We monitored intervention enrollment and completion patterns, obtained qualitative feedback on acceptability of SR use from child life–specialist stakeholders, and assessed children’s positive and negative affect, anxiety, and pain intensity pre- and postintervention. RESULTS: The intervention was well received and appeared feasible, with 93% of those enrolled completing the study (with 80% complete parent data). Children exposed to the SR reported more positive affect relative to those who received a plush animal. SR interactions were characterized by greater levels of joyfulness and agreeableness than comparison interventions. Child life specialist stakeholders reported numerous potential benefits of SR technology in the pediatric setting. CONCLUSIONS: The SR appears to be an engaging tool that may provide new ways to address the emotional needs of hospitalized children, potentially increasing access to emotionally targeted interventions. Rigorous development and validation of SR technology in pediatrics could ultimately lead to scalable and cost-effective tools to improve the patient care experience.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2018-1511

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Logan, D. E., Breazeal, C., Goodwin, M. S., Jeong, S., O’Connell, B., Smith-Freedman, D., Heathers, J., & Weinstock, P.
Affiliations
  • Departments of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine and
  • MIT Media Lab (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2019-07-01
Volume
144
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2955115809
Cited by
147
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3
FWCI
19.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Music Therapy and Health
Keywords
social robots, hospitalized children, pediatric inpatient care, avatar-based interaction, child life specialists, positive affect, anxiety, pain intensity, feasibility and acceptability, emotional needs of children, human-robot interaction
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Child, Child, Hospitalized, Child, Preschool, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Pain, Play and Playthings, Robotics, Computers, Handheld, Pleasure

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