The CARESSES study protocol: testing and evaluating culturally competent socially assistive robots among older adults residing in long term care homes through a controlled experimental trial

Chris Papadopoulos, Tetiana Hill, Linda Battistuzzi, Nina Castro, Abiha Nigath, Gurch Randhawa, Len Merton, Sanjeev Kanoria, Hiroko Kamide, Nak-Young Chong, David Hewson, Rosemary Davidson, Antonio Sgorbissa, Chris Papadopoulos, Tetiana Hill, Linda Battistuzzi, Nina Castro, Abiha Nigath, Gurch Randhawa, Len Merton, Sanjeev Kanoria, Hiroko Kamide, Nak-Young Chong, David Hewson, Rosemary Davidson, Antonio Sgorbissa

Abstract

Background: This article describes the design of an intervention study that focuses on whether and to what degree culturally competent social robots can improve health and well-being related outcomes among older adults residing long-term care homes. The trial forms the final stage of the international, multidisciplinary CARESSES project aimed at designing, developing and evaluating culturally competent robots that can assist older people according to the culture of the individual they are supporting. The importance of cultural competence has been demonstrated in previous nursing literature to be key towards improving health outcomes among patients.

Method: This study employed a mixed-method, single-blind, parallel-group controlled before-and-after experimental trial design that took place in England and Japan. It aimed to recruit 45 residents of long-term care homes aged ≥65 years, possess sufficient cognitive and physical health and who self-identify with the English, Indian or Japanese culture (n = 15 each). Participants were allocated to either the experimental group, control group 1 or control group 2 (all n = 15). Those allocated to the experimental group or control group 1 received a Pepper robot programmed with the CARESSES culturally competent artificial intelligence (experimental group) or a limited version of this software (control group 1) for 18 h across 2 weeks. Participants in control group 2 did not receive a robot and continued to receive care as usual. Participants could also nominate their informal carer(s) to participate. Quantitative data collection occurred at baseline, after 1 week of use, and after 2 weeks of use with the latter time-point also including qualitative semi-structured interviews that explored their experience and perceptions further. Quantitative outcomes of interest included perceptions of robotic cultural competence, health-related quality of life, loneliness, user satisfaction, attitudes towards robots and caregiver burden.

Discussion: This trial adds to the current preliminary and limited pool of evidence regarding the benefits of socially assistive robots for older adults which to date indicates considerable potential for improving outcomes. It is the first to assess whether and to what extent cultural competence carries importance in generating improvements to well-being.

Trial registration: Name of the registry: ClinicalTrials.govTrial registration number: NCT03756194.Date of registration: 28 November 2018. URL of trial registry record.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence; CARESSES; Cultural competence; Culturally competent robots; Social robotics; Study protocol.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© The Author(s) 2020.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design flow chart

References

    1. Bruno B, Chong NY, Kamide H, Kanoria S, Lee J, Lim Y, Pandey AK, Papadopoulos C, Papadopoulos I, Pecora F, Saffiotti A. Paving the way for culturally competent robots: a position paper. In 2017 26th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) 2017. pp. 553–560.
    1. Bruno Barbara, Recchiuto Carmine Tommaso, Papadopoulos Irena, Saffiotti Alessandro, Koulouglioti Christina, Menicatti Roberto, Mastrogiovanni Fulvio, Zaccaria Renato, Sgorbissa Antonio. Knowledge Representation for Culturally Competent Personal Robots: Requirements, Design Principles, Implementation, and Assessment. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2019;11(3):515–538. doi: 10.1007/s12369-019-00519-w.
    1. Wight D, Wimbush E, Jepson R, Doi L. Six steps in quality intervention development (6SQuID) J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(5):520–525. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-205952.
    1. Papadopoulos I. The Papadopoulos, Tilki and Taylor model of developing cultural competence. Transcultural Health And Social Care: Development of culturally competent practitioners. 2006;11:7–24.
    1. Papadopoulos I, Tilki M, Taylor G. Transcultural care: a guide for health care professionals. Quay Books; Wilts; 1998.
    1. Shen Z. Cultural competence models and cultural competence assessment instruments in nursing: a literature review. J Transcult Nurs. 2015;26(3):308–321. doi: 10.1177/1043659614524790.
    1. Leininger M. Culture care theory: a major contribution to advance transcultural nursing knowledge and practices. J Transcult Nurs. 2002;13(3):189–192. doi: 10.1177/10459602013003005.
    1. Abdi J, Al-Hindawi A, Ng T, Vizcaychipi MP. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e018815. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815.
    1. Pu L, Moyle W, Jones C, Todorovic M. The effectiveness of social robots for older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. The Gerontologist. 2018;59(1):e37–e51. doi: 10.1093/geront/gny046.
    1. Vincent GK, Velkoff VA. The next four decades: the older population in the United States: 2010 to 2050. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau; 2010.
    1. Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Measuring the global burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(5):448–457. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1201534.
    1. Parkinson, A. Scoping study on the emerging use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics in social care. Skills for Care; Leeds; 2018.
    1. Carpenter I, Hirdes JP. Using interRAI assessment systems to measure and maintain quality of long-term care. Good Life Old Age. 2013;17:93–139.
    1. Kaehr E, Visvanathan R, Malmstrom TK, Morley JE. Frailty in nursing homes: the FRAIL-NH scale. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(2):87–89. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.12.002.
    1. Ga H, Won CW, Jung H-W. Use of the frailty index and FRAIL-NH scale for the assessment of the frailty status of elderly individuals admitted in a long-term care hospital in Korea. Ann Geriatric Med Res. 2018;22(1):20–25. doi: 10.4235/agmr.2018.22.1.20.
    1. Papadopoulos I, Tilki M, Lees S. Promoting cultural competence in health care through a research based intervention in the UK. Diversity in Health Social Care. 2004;1(2):107–115.
    1. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The rand 36-item health survey 1.0. Health Econ. 1993;2(3):217–227. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020305.
    1. Hays RD, DiMatteo MR. A short-form measure of loneliness. J Pers Assess. 1987;51(1):69–81. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6.
    1. Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K. Psychology in human-robot communication: an attempt through investigation of negative attitudes and anxiety toward robots. InRO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (IEEE catalog no. 04TH8759) 2004. pp. 35–40.
    1. Zarit SH, Reever KE, Bach-Peterson J. Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. Gerontologist. 1980;20(6):649–655. doi: 10.1093/geront/20.6.649.
    1. Chin JP, Diehl VA, Norman KL. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1988. pp. 213–218.
    1. Corp IB. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.; 2013.
    1. NVivo QS. QSR international Pty ltd. Victoria: Doncaster; 2012.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Battistuzzi L, Sgorbissa A, Papadopoulos C, Papadopoulos I, Koulouglioti C. Embedding ethics in the design of culturally competent socially assistive robots. In2018 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) 2018. pp. 1996–2001.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi