No abstract

Telepresence robots have recently been introduced as a way for children who are homebound due to medical conditions to attend their local schools. These robots provide an experience that is a much richer learning experience than the typical home instruction services of 4–5 hours a week. Because the robots on the market today were designed for use by adults in work settings, they do not necessarily fit children in school settings. We carried out a study of 19 homebound students, interviewing and observing them as well as interviewing their parents, teachers, administrators, and classmates. We organized our findings along the lines of the various tasks and settings the child is in, developing a learner-centered analytic framework, then teacher-, classmate-, and homebound-controller-centered analytic frameworks. Although some features of current robots fit children in school settings, we discovered a number of cases where there was a mismatch or additional features are needed. Our findings are described according to analytic frames that capture user experiences. Based on these user-centered findings, we provide recommendations for designing the robot and user interface to better fit children using robots for school and learning activities.

Homebound students, those who can learn but have a serious health issue (e.g. cancer, heart disease, immune deficiency) that prevents physical attendance at school, are now able to go to school using telepresence robots. Telepresence robots are generally video conferencing units on remote-controlled robots. Previous research has shown that using these robots allows homebound students to interact with classmates and teachers as if they are physically present. But, what does this mean for teachers and administrators? We present a qualitative study of 22 teachers and school administrators who worked with telepresent students and 4 who decided against adopting the robot. Our goal was to learn how decisions are made to adopt the robot, what issues arise in its use, and what would make adoption easier. This study contributes new insights on teacher and administrator perspectives on what is needed for effective use of this technology in educational settings.

Each year, 2.5 million children in the United States are homebound due to illness. This paper explores the possible implications of being homebound for child development and well-being, drawing on Bronfenbrenner's bioecological systems theory of human development and Ryan and Deci's self-determination theory. This paper also explores the potential role of robotic avatars and robotmediated presence to provide homebound children with more appropriate developmental experiences. To better understand their robot-mediated developmental experiences, what is known about human development and human psychology in organic environments (i.e., bioecological systems theory and self-determination theory) is synthesized with concepts of presence theory from virtual environments. These theoretical supports form the foundation of a framework to evaluate the robot-mediated presence of homebound children. Findings from the first systematic, multicase study on the robot-mediated presence of homebound children in schools provide empirical data to inform three identified levels of presence: copresent, cooperating, and collaborating. This framework provides a first step to consistent evaluation of robot-mediated presence and engagement for this population. Understanding the social contexts and developmental needs of homebound children and how they can be achieved via robotic avatars will aid in developing more effective interventions for improved social supports and technological systems.

Objective: To understand the experiences that diverse families have when taking their young child to the dentist and document their prevalence. Study Design: An exploratory sequential design was used. First, four focus groups (n=33) with low-income female caregivers of children under 6 years were done in English and Spanish. Discussions centered around facilitators and barriers to taking children to the dentist. Themes derived from the groups were then used to create a survey that was given to 1184 caregivers in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Results: Thematic coding of focus groups found little support for typically reported barriers to pediatric oral healthcare utilization (e.g., transportation, cost, knowledge). Instead, caregivers reported negative experiences (e.g., restraint, separation) to be barriers. From the surveys, 66% of caregivers reported being separated from their child, 25% reported that their child was restrained (53.7% for cleanings), 26% of children were given sedating medication for cleanings, and 22% reported experiences that made them not want to return to the dentist. The prevalence of these experiences significantly differed between Latino, Asian, and Caucasian families and for annual incomes under or above $50,000. Conclusions: Families with lower incomes and/or from ethnic and linguistic minority groups were more likely to report negative experiences at the dentist than higher-income and Caucasian families. These data document the high prevalence of negative experiences and suggest ethnic, financial and linguistic disparities in the quality of experiences. More research is needed on the role of dentists in facilitating or hindering oral healthcare utilization among diverse families.