The usability and feasibility validation of the social robot MINI in people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment; a study protocol

Aysan Mahmoudi Asl, Jose Miguel Toribio-Guzmán, Henriëtte van der Roest, Álvaro Castro-González, María Malfaz, Miguel A Salichs, Manuel Franco Martin, Aysan Mahmoudi Asl, Jose Miguel Toribio-Guzmán, Henriëtte van der Roest, Álvaro Castro-González, María Malfaz, Miguel A Salichs, Manuel Franco Martin

Abstract

Background: Social robots have demonstrated promising outcomes in terms of increasing the social health and well-being of people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. According to the World Health Organization's Monitoring and assessing digital health interventions framework, usability and feasibility studies are crucial before implementing prototype social robots and proving their efficacy and effectiveness. This protocol paper aims to detail the plan for conducting the usability and feasibility study of the MINI robot based on evidence-based recommended methodology.

Methods: In this study, an experimental design and a mixed method of data collection will be applied. Twenty participants aged 65 and over with dementia or mild cognitive impairment will be recruited. Eight sessions of interaction with the robot, as well as qualitative and quantitative assessments, will be accomplished. The research will take place in a laboratory. Ethical approvals have been acquired. This research will be valuable in the development of the MINI robot and its practical deployment in the actual world, as well as the methodological evidence base in the sector of social robots.

Discussion: By the winter of 2022-2023, the findings of this study will be accessible for dissemination. This study will aid to improve the evidence-based methodology used to study the feasibility and usability of social robots in people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment as well as what can be learned to advance such study designs in the future.

Keywords: Acceptability; Dementia; Feasibility; Social robots; Study design; Usability.

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interest was declared.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The evaluation and monitoring maturity of the MINI robot over time
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
MINI robot
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The tablet user interface

References

    1. Dementia in Europe Yearbook 2019 [].
    1. Adames HY, Tazeau YN. Caring for Latinxs with Dementia in a Globalized World. Springer; 2020.
    1. Dyer AH, Murphy C, Lawlor B, Kennelly SP, Study Group For The N Social networks in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease: longitudinal relationships with dementia severity, cognitive function, and adverse events. Aging Ment Health. 2020;25:1923–1929. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2020.1745146.
    1. Chang F, Patel T, Schulz ME. The "rising tide" of dementia in Canada: what does it mean for pharmacists and the people they care for? Can Pharm J (Ott) 2015;148(4):193–199. doi: 10.1177/1715163515588107.
    1. Gordijn B, Have HT. Technology and dementia. Med Health Care Philos. 2016;19(3):339–340. doi: 10.1007/s11019-016-9715-4.
    1. Mahmoudi Asl A, Molinari Ulate M, Franco Martin M, van der Roest H. Methodologies used to study the feasibility, usability, efficacy, and effectiveness of social robots for elderly adults: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(8):e37434. doi: 10.2196/37434.
    1. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K. Robot assisted activity at a health service facility for the aged for ten weeks: an interim report of a long-term experiment. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering. 2006;220(8):709–715.
    1. Wada K, Shibata TJIS. Social and physiological influences of robot therapy in a care house. Interact Stud. 2008;9(2):258–276. doi: 10.1075/is.9.2.06wad.
    1. Yu C, Sommerlad A, Sakure L, Livingston G. Socially assistive robots for people with dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis of feasibility, acceptability and the effect on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life. Ageing Res Rev. 2022;78:101633. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101633.
    1. Beer JM, Prakash A, Smarr CA, Chen TL, Hawkins K, Nguyen H, Deyle T, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA. Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: attitudinal changes following brief exposure. Gerontechnology: international journal on the fundamental aspects of technology to serve the ageing society. 2017;16(1):21. doi: 10.4017/gt.2017.16.1.003.00.
    1. Salichs MA, Castro-González Á, Salichs E, Fernández-Rodicio E, Maroto-Gómez M, Gamboa-Montero JJ, Marques-Villarroya S, Castillo JC, Alonso-Martín F, Malfaz M. Mini: a new social robot for the elderly. Int J Soc Robot. 2020;12(6):1231–1249. doi: 10.1007/s12369-020-00687-0.
    1. Schüssler S, Zuschnegg J, Paletta L, Fellner M, Lodron G, Steiner J, Pansy-Resch S, Lammer L, Prodromou D, Brunsch S, Holter M. The effects of a humanoid socially assistive robot versus tablet training on psychosocial and physical outcomes of persons with dementia: protocol for a mixed methods study. JMIR research protocols. 2020;9(2):e14927. doi: 10.2196/14927.
    1. Khosla R, Nguyen K, Chu MT. Human robot engagement and acceptability in residential aged care. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2017;33(6):510–522. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2016.1275435.
    1. Bradwell HL, Edwards KJ, Winnington R, Thill S, Jones RB, Khosla R, Nguyen K, Chu MT. Human robot engagement and acceptability in residential aged care. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2019;9(9):e032468.
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346.
    1. Organization WH . Monitoring and evaluating digital health interventions: a practical guide to conducting research and assessment. 2016.
    1. Heerink M, Kröse B, Evers V, Wielinga B. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int J Soc Robot. 2010;2(4):361–375. doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5.
    1. Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2008;24(6):574–594. doi: 10.1080/10447310802205776.
    1. Salichs E, Fernández-Rodicio E, Castillo JC, Castro-González Á, Malfaz M, Salichs MÁ. International conference on practical applications of agents and multi-agent systems: 2018. Springer; 2018. A social robot assisting in cognitive stimulation therapy; pp. 344–347.
    1. Velázquez-Navarroa E, González-Dıaza S, Alonso-Martına F, Castilloa JC, Castro-Gonzáleza A, Malfaza M, Salichsa MA. El robot social Mini como plataforma para el desarrollo de juegos de interacción multimodales. Jornadas Nacionales de Robotica, Spanish Robotics Conference; 2019.
    1. Smedegaard CV. Novelty knows no boundaries: why a proper investigation of novelty effects within SHRI should begin by addressing the scientific plurality of the field. Frontiers in robotics and AI. 2022;9:741478. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2022.741478.
    1. Brooke JJ. SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud. 2013;8(2):29–40.
    1. Van Haitsma K, Klapper J. Observed emotion rating scale. Journal of Mental Health and Aging. 1999;5(1):69–81.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir