# Expectation vs. Reality: Attitudes Towards a Socially Assistive Robot in Cardiac Rehabilitation
## 5 Discussion
### Clinicians  
For the clinician group the UTAUT shows positive opinions regarding (U/A), (U), (PU), (PT), and (PS) categories, which means that clinicians think that the robot and the parameters measured are useful and reliable in CR sessions. The (S) construct was scored negative due the question formulation; however, the results regarding this construct are positive as the clinicians do not consider the robot as a risk for the patients. Regarding perceive sociability (PS), the opinions in some questions were interesting, for example, for this construct in Q1 and Q5, clinicians think that the robot has to be only a coach with social cues and providing feedback the patient, but not a friendly companion as the patients needed to be concentrated in the therapy and the exercise. On the other hand, responses to Q3 showed that some clinicians think that the robot should not know the needs of the patients as that was the work of the medical staff. The social presence (SP) perception showed neutral response in general, this can be due to the perception of the robot as a social agent before the focus group was performed. In this case, the responses related to this construct showed that clinicians think that the robot could not have social skills as the humans (e.g., emotion and living creature) due the robot is perceived like an object.  
One of the most important aspects that were observed during the focus group was the change of clinician perception as they went through the system's demonstration and received more information. As pointed out in the opening discussion, some clinicians perceived the incorporation of a social robot as a thread, as they regard the robot as a potential replacement. However, after the explanation of the technology and its objectives, it was emphasized that the robot must be considered as a tool that can improve their efficiency during therapy. Additionally, it was highlighted the relevance that the clinical staff has within the program. As a result of the informative talk, their conception of the system turned into a positive one, where clinicians showed interest and they also provided suggestions for improvements of the system. Additionally, more sociability capabilities were requested for robot behavior, as they realized the importance of this factor after the demonstrations and discussions; also, that the robot could provide statistics of the patients' performance as the system was capable to perform online monitoring during the complete outpatient phase. This feature can be interesting in order to support clinicians needs and help them with the diagnosis when patients finish phase II. Similarly, a more interactive robot model can be implemented using this information to provide better performance's feedback and interaction during therapy. Finally, comments made of the robot as a device to improve the cardiac rehabilitation process indicate that clinicians are interested to continue using the system.  
Taking into account patient and clinician perception, one common factor that they emphasized is the sociability or social behaviors that the robot can exhibit. Results suggest that the current social features presented by the robot during therapy must be enhanced. This means that more algorithms and features, such as memory and vision recognition, can play an important role to increase the impact within therapies. However, there is a positive opinion regarding the usefulness of the system in this context, and the reliability of their monitoring that generates confidence to the users. These results are relevant to promote the adoption of the robot in CR and hold promising potential to continue investigating this approach.