Socially assistive robots in child healthcare: evaluating internal and external emotion regulation interventions
This research study evaluates the effectiveness of two socially assistive robot (SAR) emotional support strategies—internal emotion regulation via guided breathing and external emotion regulation via motivational speech and hugging—during children's group vaccination days. Analyzing responses from 225 children aged 8 to 12, the study found that active participation in SAR interventions significantly reduced fear and anxiety while enhancing trust and willingness to re-engage, particularly among girls. The findings suggest that active engagement is a key mechanism for optimizing robotic emotional support in pediatric healthcare settings.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers and healthcare practitioners interested in human-robot interaction and pediatric stress management.
What the document contains
The document covers a field study evaluating two robot-mediated emotional support strategies (guided breathing versus motivational speech and hugging) administered to children during annual vaccination days, measuring outcomes in anxiety, fear, trust, and engagement.
The study does not provide long-term follow-up on children's anxiety, lacks a traditional human-led control group comparison, and does not capture physiological biomarkers of stress.
- Active participation in socially assistive robot (SAR) interventions leads to greater reductions in children's fear and anxiety during vaccinations compared to passive observation.
- Internal emotion regulation (breathing exercises) and external emotion regulation (hugging and motivational speech) yield comparable short-term reductions in fear and anxiety.
- Active physical comfort through hugging enhances both trust in the robot and the child's willingness to re-engage.
- Gender differences emerged, with girls reporting higher baseline anxiety and demonstrating stronger positive responses to active engagement and physical comfort.
· 1 Introduction · 2 Related work · 3 Methodology · 4 Results · 5 General discussion · 6 Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
0/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
0/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23