Increasing efficiency and well-being? a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double-benefit argument in socially assistive devices
Abstract Background Socially assistive devices (care robots, companions, smart screen assistants) have been advocated as a promising tool in elderly care in Western healthcare systems. Ethical debates indicate various challenges. One of the most prevalent arguments in the debate is the double-benefi...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-11-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Ethics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00984-z |
| _version_ | 1797414095406759936 |
|---|---|
| author | Joschka Haltaufderheide Annika Lucht Christoph Strünck Jochen Vollmann |
| author_facet | Joschka Haltaufderheide Annika Lucht Christoph Strünck Jochen Vollmann |
| author_sort | Joschka Haltaufderheide |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Socially assistive devices (care robots, companions, smart screen assistants) have been advocated as a promising tool in elderly care in Western healthcare systems. Ethical debates indicate various challenges. One of the most prevalent arguments in the debate is the double-benefit argument claiming that socially assistive devices may not only provide benefits for autonomy and well-being of their users but might also be more efficient than other caring practices and might help to mitigate scarce resources in healthcare. Against this background, we used a subset of comparative empirical studies from a comprehensive systematic review on effects and perceptions of human-machine interaction with socially assistive devices to gather and appraise all available evidence supporting this argument from the empirical side. Methods Electronic databases and additional sources were queried using a comprehensive search strategy which generated 9851 records. Studies were screened independently by two authors. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For 39 reports using a comparative study design, a narrative synthesis was performed. Results The data shows positive evidential support to claim that some socially assistive devices (Paro) might be able to contribute to the well-being and autonomy of their users. However, results also indicate that these positive findings may be heavily dependent on the context of use and the population. In addition, we found evidence that socially assistive devices can have negative effects on certain populations. Evidence regarding the claim of efficiency is scarce. Existing results indicate that socially assistive devices can be more effective than standard of care but are far less effective than plush toys or placebo devices. Discussion We suggest using the double-benefit argument with great caution as it is not supported by the currently available evidence. The occurrence of potentially negative effects of socially assistive devices requires more research and indicates a more complex ethical calculus than suggested by the double-benefit argument. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T05:27:05Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3db44f78c7f34300b79986f4d45a21b0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6939 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T05:27:05Z |
| publishDate | 2023-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Ethics |
| spelling | doaj.art-3db44f78c7f34300b79986f4d45a21b02023-12-03T12:35:25ZengBMCBMC Medical Ethics1472-69392023-11-0124111410.1186/s12910-023-00984-zIncreasing efficiency and well-being? a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double-benefit argument in socially assistive devicesJoschka Haltaufderheide0Annika Lucht1Christoph Strünck2Jochen Vollmann3Medical Ethics with a Focus on Digitization, Joint Faculty for Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of PotsdamInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-University BochumSchool of Life Sciences, University of SiegenInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr-University BochumAbstract Background Socially assistive devices (care robots, companions, smart screen assistants) have been advocated as a promising tool in elderly care in Western healthcare systems. Ethical debates indicate various challenges. One of the most prevalent arguments in the debate is the double-benefit argument claiming that socially assistive devices may not only provide benefits for autonomy and well-being of their users but might also be more efficient than other caring practices and might help to mitigate scarce resources in healthcare. Against this background, we used a subset of comparative empirical studies from a comprehensive systematic review on effects and perceptions of human-machine interaction with socially assistive devices to gather and appraise all available evidence supporting this argument from the empirical side. Methods Electronic databases and additional sources were queried using a comprehensive search strategy which generated 9851 records. Studies were screened independently by two authors. Methodological quality of studies was assessed. For 39 reports using a comparative study design, a narrative synthesis was performed. Results The data shows positive evidential support to claim that some socially assistive devices (Paro) might be able to contribute to the well-being and autonomy of their users. However, results also indicate that these positive findings may be heavily dependent on the context of use and the population. In addition, we found evidence that socially assistive devices can have negative effects on certain populations. Evidence regarding the claim of efficiency is scarce. Existing results indicate that socially assistive devices can be more effective than standard of care but are far less effective than plush toys or placebo devices. Discussion We suggest using the double-benefit argument with great caution as it is not supported by the currently available evidence. The occurrence of potentially negative effects of socially assistive devices requires more research and indicates a more complex ethical calculus than suggested by the double-benefit argument.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00984-zHealth care technologyHealth services for the agedMedical ethicsSystematic reviewSocially assistive devicesCare robots |
| spellingShingle | Joschka Haltaufderheide Annika Lucht Christoph Strünck Jochen Vollmann Increasing efficiency and well-being? a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double-benefit argument in socially assistive devices BMC Medical Ethics Health care technology Health services for the aged Medical ethics Systematic review Socially assistive devices Care robots |
| title | Increasing efficiency and well-being? a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double-benefit argument in socially assistive devices |
| title_full | Increasing efficiency and well-being? a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double-benefit argument in socially assistive devices |
| title_fullStr | Increasing efficiency and well-being? a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double-benefit argument in socially assistive devices |
| title_full_unstemmed | Increasing efficiency and well-being? a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double-benefit argument in socially assistive devices |
| title_short | Increasing efficiency and well-being? a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double-benefit argument in socially assistive devices |
| title_sort | increasing efficiency and well being a systematic review of the empirical claims of the double benefit argument in socially assistive devices |
| topic | Health care technology Health services for the aged Medical ethics Systematic review Socially assistive devices Care robots |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00984-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT joschkahaltaufderheide increasingefficiencyandwellbeingasystematicreviewoftheempiricalclaimsofthedoublebenefitargumentinsociallyassistivedevices AT annikalucht increasingefficiencyandwellbeingasystematicreviewoftheempiricalclaimsofthedoublebenefitargumentinsociallyassistivedevices AT christophstrunck increasingefficiencyandwellbeingasystematicreviewoftheempiricalclaimsofthedoublebenefitargumentinsociallyassistivedevices AT jochenvollmann increasingefficiencyandwellbeingasystematicreviewoftheempiricalclaimsofthedoublebenefitargumentinsociallyassistivedevices |