RESUMO
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.