Design, development, and optimization of “Tomy”, a social robot designed to complement psychological care for children hospitalized with hematologic malignancies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59594/iicqp.2026.v4n2.178Keywords:
Robotics, Biomedical Technology, Child, Hospitalized, Hematologic Neoplasms, Psycho-OncologyAbstract
Objective: To describe the design, manufacturing, electronic and digital integration, and functional optimization of “Tomy”, a social robot designed as a complementary tool to be used alongside routine psychological care for children aged 6–12 years hospitalized with hematologic malignancies.
Methods: A technological development and early technical evaluation study was conducted using a user-centered design approach. Individual surveys and an exploratory group feedback activity were conducted with hospitalized pediatric patients to identify their preferences and define the robot’s appearance, modes of interaction, and functional requirements. A participatory session was also conducted with psychologists from the Hematology Service to align the robot’s intended functionalities with the objectives of routine psychological sessions. The development process comprised three iterations: an initial proof of concept, an intermediate prototype, and a final functional prototype, all designed using three-dimensional digital modeling and manufactured through fused deposition modeling 3D printing with polylactic acid filament. After the electronic and digital components were integrated into the final functional prototype, functional testing and optimization were performed. Clinical outcomes were not evaluated.
Results: In the initial exploratory survey of three patients, two preferred an animal morphology over a humanoid appearance. The information obtained was used to develop a proof-of-concept prototype with a canine morphology. This model was subsequently presented during an exploratory group feedback activity with three patients, whose comments informed adjustments to the appearance and intended modes of interaction, resulting in an intermediate prototype. In the aesthetic validation survey, nine of the 10 patients indicated that they liked the robot’s shape and considered its appearance friendly; all stated that they would like to have such a robot during their hospitalization. The psychologists’ participation helped identify the objectives and activities of routine psychological care and define functionalities intended for future integration into these sessions. The iterative process resulted in a final functional prototype with a canine morphology that was operated by a psychologist through a web interface with predefined content and commands. The robot incorporated a facial display with four preprogrammed expressions (tiredness, happiness, anger, and sadness), movements of the head, tail, and hind legs, LED lights to indicate specific body parts, and accessories (stethoscope, flower, hat, and face mask) designed to complement the content intended for the psychological sessions through visual and play-based elements.
Conclusion: “Tomy” is a functional social robot prototype with canine morphology, designed with the participation of hospitalized children and psychologists, and conceived as a complementary tool to be used alongside routine psychological care for children hospitalized with hematologic malignancies. Its clinical implementation and effects on emotional outcomes were not evaluated. Future phases should assess its safety, feasibility, acceptability, usability, integration into psychological sessions, and added value compared with simpler alternatives, as well as its potential clinical effects and its ability to facilitate the structured delivery of content during psychological care.
Downloads
References
1. de Paula Silva N, Colombet M, Moreno F, Erdmann F, Dolya A, Piñeros M, et al. Incidence of childhood cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean: coverage, patterns, and time trends. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2024;48:e11. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2024.11
2. Al-Saadi LS, Chan MF, Al-Azri M. Prevalence of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder among children and adolescents with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Nurs. 2022;39(2):114-31. doi: 10.1177/27527530211056001
3. Gomez-Gamboa E, Rodrigo-Pedrosa O, Saz Roy MA, Gomez-Rodriguez A, Loscertales AN, Llobet MP. Spiritual pain as part of the hospitalization experience of children and adolescents with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a phenomenological study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2022;58:102141. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2022.102141
4. Wiener L, Kazak AE, Noll RB, Patenaude AF, Kupst MJ. Standards for the psychosocial care of children with cancer and their families: an introduction to the special issue. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015;62 Suppl 5:S419-24. doi: 10.1002/pbc.25675
5. Trigoso V, Vásquez L, Fuentes-Alabi S, Pascual C, Méndez T, Maradiegue E, et al. Standards for psychosocial care in pediatric cancer: adapted proposal for Latin American and Caribbean countries. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2023;47:e156. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2023.156
6. Hsu FY, Lee YH, Tsai JL, Lien ASY. Socially assistive robots for pain management and emotional responses in pediatric hospital care: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e76427. doi: 10.2196/76427
7. Littler BKM, Alessa T, Dimitri P, Smith C, de Witte L. Reducing negative emotions in children using social robots: systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2021;106(11):1095-101. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2020-320721
8. Triantafyllidis A, Alexiadis A, Votis K, Tzovaras D. Social robot interventions for child healthcare: a systematic review of the literature. Comput Methods Programs Biomed Update. 2023;3:100108. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpbup.2023.100108
9. Liao YJ, Jao YL, Boltz M, Adekeye OT, Berish D, Yuan F, et al. Use of a humanoid robot in supporting dementia care: a qualitative analysis. SAGE Open Nurs. 2023;9:23779608231179528. doi: 10.1177/23779608231179528
10. Caballa S, Lizano D, Aranda M, Zegarra D. RoPi: robotic assistant for the emotional support of hospitalized children for burns. En: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; 13-16 de marzo de 2023; Estocolmo, Suecia. Nueva York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2023. p. 845-8. doi: 10.1145/3568294.3580198
11. Marcus HJ, Bennett A, Chari A, Day T, Hirst A, Hughes-Hallett A, et al. IDEAL-D framework for device innovation: a consensus statement on the preclinical stage. Ann Surg. 2022;275(1):73-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004907
12. Hudson S, Nishat F, Stinson J, Litwin S, Zeller F, Wiles B, et al. Perspectives of healthcare providers to inform the design of an AI-enhanced social robot in the pediatric emergency department. Children (Basel). 2023;10(9):1511. doi: 10.3390/children10091511
13. Neerincx A. Social robot scenarios for real-world child and family care settings through participatory design. arXiv:2209.11489v2 [preprint]. 2022 [revisado el 21 de julio de 2023; citado el 12 de agosto de 2026]: [4 p.]. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.11489
14. Foster ME, Petrick RPA. Towards social HRI for improving children’s healthcare experiences. arXiv:2010.04652v1 [preprint]. 2020 [citado el 12 de agosto de 2026]: [5 p.]. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.04652
15. Neerincx A, Veldhuis D, Masthoff JMF, de Graaf MMA. Co-designing a social robot for child health care. Int J Child Comput Interact. 2023;38:100615. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100615
16. Meghdari A, Shariati A, Alemi M, Nobaveh AA, Khamooshi M, Mozaffari B. Design performance characteristics of a social robot companion “Arash” for pediatric hospitals. Int J HR. 2018;15(5):1850019. doi: 10.1142/S0219843618500196
17. Alemi M, Ghanbarzadeh A, Meghdari A, Moghadam LJ. Clinical application of a humanoid robot in pediatric cancer interventions. Int J Soc Robot. 2016;8(5):743-59. doi: 10.1007/s12369-015-0294-y
18. Meghdari A, Shariati A, Alemi M, Vossoughi GR, Eydi A, Ahmadi E, et al. Arash: a social robot buddy to support children with cancer in a hospital environment. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018;232(6):605-18. doi: 10.1177/0954411918777520
19. Jibb LA, Birnie KA, Nathan PC, Beran TN, Hum V, Victor JC, et al. Using the MEDiPORT humanoid robot to reduce procedural pain and distress in children with cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65(9):e27242. doi: 10.1002/pbc.27242
20. van Bindsbergen KLA, van der Hoek H, van Gorp M, Ligthart MEU, Hindriks KV, Neerincx MA, et al. Interactive education on sleep hygiene with a social robot at a pediatric oncology outpatient clinic: feasibility, experiences, and preliminary effectiveness. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(15):3792. doi: 10.3390/cancers14153792
21. Lozano-Mosos JS, Hernández Leal J, Colina-Matiz S, Muñoz-Vargas PT. Education by a social robot on nutrition and catheter care in pediatric oncology patients. Support Care Cancer. 2023;31(12):693. doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-08168-6
22. Colina-Matiz S, Hernández Leal J, Ariza-Vargas JC, Beltrán Higuera OR, Ovalle-Chaparro C, González Suárez NL, et al. Social robotics as an adjuvant during the hospitalization process in pediatric oncology patients. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2024;42(6):811-21. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2024.2335170
23. Moerman CJ, Jansens RML. Using social robot PLEO to enhance the well-being of hospitalised children. J Child Health Care. 2021;25(3):412-26. doi: 10.1177/1367493520947503
24. Tanaka K, Makino H, Nakamura K, Nakamura A, Hayakawa M, Uchida H, et al. The pilot study of group robot intervention on pediatric inpatients and their caregivers, using ‘new aibo’. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181(3):1055-61. doi: 10.1007/s00431-021-04285-8
25. Logan DE, Breazeal C, Goodwin MS, Jeong S, O’Connell B, Smith-Freedman D, et al. Social robots for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2019;144(1):e20181511. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1511
26. Okita SY. Self-other’s perspective taking: the use of therapeutic robot companions as social agents for reducing pain and anxiety in pediatric patients. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013;16(6):436-41. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0513
27. Kabacińska K, Teng KA, Robillard JM. Social robot interactions in a pediatric hospital setting: perspectives of children, parents, and healthcare providers. Multimodal Technol Interact. 2025;9(2):14. doi: 10.3390/mti9020014
28. van Bindsbergen KLA, van Gorp M, Thomassen BW, Merks JHM, Grootenhuis MA. Social robots in pediatric oncology: opinions of health care providers. J Psychosoc Oncol Res Pract. 2022;4(2):e073. doi: 10.1097/OR9.0000000000000073
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Investigación e Innovación Clínica y Quirúrgica Pediátrica

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
