Fair enough? : How developers and clinicians justify who receives physical assistive robotics in rehabilitation
Frennert, Susanne LU
and Fischer, Björn
LU
(2026)
In Social Science and Medicine
400.
- Abstract
Background Physical assistive robots are increasingly promoted in rehabilitation. However, it remains unclear how and for whom, physical assistive robots move from laboratory prototypes into rehabilitation practice, and whether this transition mitigates or reproduces existing inequalities in access to rehabilitation. Objective To examine how moral reasoning and institutional arrangements shape who receives physical assistive robots in healthcare and with what consequences for equity in rehabilitation. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten global developers and fifteen clinicians working within the Swedish healthcare system. Using the Economies of Worth framework, we undertook a theory-informed thematic analysis of how... (More)
Background Physical assistive robots are increasingly promoted in rehabilitation. However, it remains unclear how and for whom, physical assistive robots move from laboratory prototypes into rehabilitation practice, and whether this transition mitigates or reproduces existing inequalities in access to rehabilitation. Objective To examine how moral reasoning and institutional arrangements shape who receives physical assistive robots in healthcare and with what consequences for equity in rehabilitation. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten global developers and fifteen clinicians working within the Swedish healthcare system. Using the Economies of Worth framework, we undertook a theory-informed thematic analysis of how participants justify, contest and negotiate decisions about designing, prescribing and funding the development of physical assistive robots. Results We identified five interconnected patterns: (1) Marketable first, meaningful second; (2) Exclusion and inclusion through institutional rules; (3) Converging and conflicting with the ‘universal body’; (4) Participation without power; and (5) Advocacy work under structural constraints. Conclusion Our findings indicate that moral reasoning about physical assistive robots is organised mainly through industrial and market logics, which frequently overshadow civic and care-based values. Consequently, there is a risk of reproducing and amplifying existing inequalities in access to rehabilitation and the use of assistive physical robots. Our study contributes to the debate on health technology and equity by showing how justifications made by developers and clinicians help configure access to emerging technologies in rehabilitation.
(Less)
- author
- Frennert, Susanne
LU
and Fischer, Björn
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2026-07
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Assistive technology, Clinicians, Developers, Economies of worth, Physical assistive robots, Rehabilitation
- in
- Social Science and Medicine
- volume
- 400
- article number
- 119299
- pages
- 9 pages
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:105035635185
- pmid:41990551
- ISSN
- 0277-9536
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119299
- project
- HUMAN-ROBOT SENSORIMOTOR AUGMENTATION - WEARABLE SENSORIMOTOR INTERFACES AND SUPERNUMERARY ROBOTIC LIMBS FOR HUMANS WITH UPPER-LIMB DISABILITIES
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 252e32d0-a78d-478a-9cae-4cb684ff2bab
- date added to LUP
- 2026-05-08 10:56:55
- date last changed
- 2026-06-19 14:14:23
@article{252e32d0-a78d-478a-9cae-4cb684ff2bab,
abstract = {{<p>Background Physical assistive robots are increasingly promoted in rehabilitation. However, it remains unclear how and for whom, physical assistive robots move from laboratory prototypes into rehabilitation practice, and whether this transition mitigates or reproduces existing inequalities in access to rehabilitation. Objective To examine how moral reasoning and institutional arrangements shape who receives physical assistive robots in healthcare and with what consequences for equity in rehabilitation. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten global developers and fifteen clinicians working within the Swedish healthcare system. Using the Economies of Worth framework, we undertook a theory-informed thematic analysis of how participants justify, contest and negotiate decisions about designing, prescribing and funding the development of physical assistive robots. Results We identified five interconnected patterns: (1) Marketable first, meaningful second; (2) Exclusion and inclusion through institutional rules; (3) Converging and conflicting with the ‘universal body’; (4) Participation without power; and (5) Advocacy work under structural constraints. Conclusion Our findings indicate that moral reasoning about physical assistive robots is organised mainly through industrial and market logics, which frequently overshadow civic and care-based values. Consequently, there is a risk of reproducing and amplifying existing inequalities in access to rehabilitation and the use of assistive physical robots. Our study contributes to the debate on health technology and equity by showing how justifications made by developers and clinicians help configure access to emerging technologies in rehabilitation.</p>}},
author = {{Frennert, Susanne and Fischer, Björn}},
issn = {{0277-9536}},
keywords = {{Assistive technology; Clinicians; Developers; Economies of worth; Physical assistive robots; Rehabilitation}},
language = {{eng}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Social Science and Medicine}},
title = {{Fair enough? : How developers and clinicians justify who receives physical assistive robotics in rehabilitation}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119299}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119299}},
volume = {{400}},
year = {{2026}},
}