Feasibility pilot explores social robots improving patient engagement in a geriatric hospital, indicating potential benefits for user experience.
BACKGROUND Humanoid robots are being used more frequently in healthcare: in geriatrics and pediatrics, robots such as “Pepper” and “NAO” have been shown to enhance communication, emotional well-being and patient engagement. During the pandemic, their role expanded, for example to include remote monitoring and reducing the risk of infection. Given these applications, our study examines the integration of two advanced humanoid robots, Pepper and NAO, within the reception area of a geriatric hospital. OBJECTIVE The study aims to develop a reception service directed to enhance the quality of IRCCS INRCA Institution of Ancona. METHODS The HOSPER study is a feasibility pilot project coordinated by IRCCS INRCA. During the trial, 200 older adults using services at IRCCS INRCA in Ancona will be enrolled. Two humanoid robots, NAO and Pepper, which are already available at the hospital, will be used to support reception and orientation services. Data collection will include general demographics, cognitive and functional status, usability measures, perceived service quality and human–robot interaction indicators. RESULTS The recruitment and data collection started in January 2025 and will be concluded by December 2025. The results about the feasibility of the robotic-based reception service in a geriatric hospital will be published in 2026. CONCLUSIONS The HOSPER study aims to explore whether the introduction of social robots could improve the older adults’ experience in a hospital, reducing frustration and anxiety. The usability and user experience evaluation will demonstrate the feasibility of the approach and provide indications for future developments and improvements. CLINICALTRIAL The study protocol was recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov on the number NCT07002411.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amabili et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: