"Are we ready for robots that care for us?" Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots

Maribel Pino, Mélodie Boulay, François Jouen, Anne-Sophie Rigaud, Maribel Pino, Mélodie Boulay, François Jouen, Anne-Sophie Rigaud

Abstract

Socially Assistive Robots (SAR) may help improve care delivery at home for older adults with cognitive impairment and reduce the burden of informal caregivers. Examining the views of these stakeholders on SAR is fundamental in order to conceive acceptable and useful SAR for dementia care. This study investigated SAR acceptance among three groups of older adults living in the community: persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment, informal caregivers of persons with dementia, and healthy older adults. Different technology acceptance questions related to the robot and user characteristics, potential applications, feelings about technology, ethical issues, and barriers and facilitators for SAR adoption, were addressed in a mixed-method study. Participants (n = 25) completed a survey and took part in a focus group (n = 7). A functional robot prototype, a multimedia presentation, and some use-case scenarios provided a base for the discussion. Content analysis was carried out based on recorded material from focus groups. Results indicated that an accurate insight of influential factors for SAR acceptance could be gained by combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Participants acknowledged the potential benefits of SAR for supporting care at home for individuals with cognitive impairment. In all the three groups, intention to use SAR was found to be lower for the present time than that anticipated for the future. However, caregivers and persons with MCI had a higher perceived usefulness and intention to use SAR, at the present time, than healthy older adults, confirming that current needs are strongly related to technology acceptance and should influence SAR design. A key theme that emerged in this study was the importance of customizing SAR appearance, services, and social capabilities. Mismatch between needs and solutions offered by the robot, usability factors, and lack of experience with technology, were seen as the most important barriers for SAR adoption.

Keywords: Mild Cognitive Impairment; dementia; older adults; socially assistive robots; technology acceptance.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Technology Acceptance Models applied to the context of SAR. (A) Structural model of determinants of home healthcare robots adoption (Alaiad and Zhou, 2014); (B) The Almere model for assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults (Heerink et al., 2010).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Robots presented in the focus groups and design category. Machine-like:(A) RobuLAB 10; Mechanical human-like:(B) Kompaï, (C) Pearl, (D) Mamoru-kun (little protector), (E) Eve (from Wall-E a Pixar film); Human-like:(F) Telenoïd, (G) Nexi; Android:(H) Geminoid F; Mechanical animal-like:(I) iCat: Animal-like:(J) Paro.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Preferences regarding SAR design.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Preferred functionalities for SAR.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Current and future intention to use SAR analyzed by individual factors.

References

    1. Alaiad A., Zhou L. (2014). The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83, 825–840. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.07.003
    1. Alzheimer's Association . (2012). Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 8, 131–168. 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.02.001
    1. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th Edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
    1. Arras K. O., Cerqui D. (2005). Do We Want to Share Our Lives and Bodies with Robots? A 2000-People Survey. Technical Report 0605-001. Autonomous Systems Lab (ASL), Lausanne: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne.
    1. Beer J. B., Prakash A., Mitzner T. L., Rogers W. (2011). Understanding Robot Acceptance. Technical Report HFA-TR-1103. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology
    1. Berger J., Heath C. (2008). Who drives divergence? Identity signaling, outgroup dissimilarity, and the abandonment of cultural tastes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 593–607. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.593
    1. Blom J. O., Monk A. F. (2003). Theory of personalization of appearance: why users personalize their PCs and mobile phones. J. Hum. Comput. Int. 18, 193–228. 10.1207/S15327051HCI1803_1
    1. Boissy P., Corriveau H., Michaud F., Labonté D., Royer M.-P. (2007). A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects. J. Telemed. Telecare. 13, 79–84. 10.1258/135763307780096195
    1. Broadbent E., Stafford R., MacDonald B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 319–330. 10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6
    1. Broadbent E., Kuo I. H., Lee Y. I., Rabindran J., Kerse N., Stafford R., et al. . (2010). Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. Telemed. e-Health 16, 608–613. 10.1089/tmj.2009.0171
    1. Broekens J., Heerink M., Rosendal H. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8, 94–103. 10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.002.00
    1. Button K. S., Ioannidis J. P., Mokrysz C., Nosek B. A., Flint J., Robinson E. S., et al. . (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376. 10.1038/nrn3475
    1. Cui Y., Chipchase J., Ichikawa F. (2007). A cross culture study on phone carrying and physical personalization. Usability and Internationalization. HCI Culture LNCS 4559, 483–492. 10.1007/978-3-540-73287-7_57
    1. Dautenhahn K., Woods S., Kaouri C., Walters M., Koay K. L., Werry I. (2005). What is a robot companion—friend. assistant or butler?, in Proceedings: International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2005) (Edmonton. AB: IEEE Press; ), 1488–1493.
    1. Dautenhahn K. (2007). Methodology and themes of human-robot interaction: a growing research field. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 4, 103–108. 10.5772/5702
    1. Dedoose (2012). Web Application for Managing, Analyzing, and Presenting Qualitative and Mixed Method Data. Los Angeles, CA: Socio Cultural Research Consultants; LLC.
    1. DiSalvo C. F., Gemperle F., Forlizzi J., Kiesler S. (2002). All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads, in Proceedings 4th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (London: ).
    1. Dupourqué V. (2009). RobuLAB 10, a service robot designed to Aging-in-Place. Gerontechnology 8, 183 10.4017/gt.2009.08.03.009.00
    1. Feil-Seifer D., Mataric M. J. (2005). Defining socially assistive robotics, in Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (Chicago, IL: ).
    1. Flandorfer P. (2012). Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int. J. Populat. Res. 2012, 1–13. 10.1155/2012/829835
    1. Folstein M., Folstein S. E., McHugh P. R. (1975). Mini-Mental State” a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 12, 189–198. 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
    1. Frennert S., Eftring H., Östlund B. (2013). What older people expect of robots: a mixed methods approach. Soc. Rob. LNCS 8239, 19–29. 10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_3
    1. Fujisawa R., Colombo F. (2009). The long-term care workforce: overview and strategies to adapt supply to a growing demand. OECD Health Working Papers. No. 44. OECD Publishing.
    1. Gross H. M., Schroeter C., Mueller S., Volkhardt M., Einhorn E., Bley A., Langner T., et al. (2011). I'll keep an eye on you: home robot companion for elderly people with cognitive impairment, in Proceedings: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, Cybernetics (SMC) (Anchorage, AK: ).
    1. Harmo P., Taipalus T., Knuuttila J., Vallet J., Halme A. (2005). Needs and solutions-home automation and service robots for the elderly and disabled, Proceedings: 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (Edmonton, AB: ).
    1. Hawkey K., Inkpen K. M., Rockwood K., McAllister M., Slonim J. (2005). Requirements Gathering with Alzheimer's Patients and Caregivers, in Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Baltimore, MD: ).
    1. Heerink M., Kröse B., Evers V., Wielinga B. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the almere model. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2, 361–375. 10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5
    1. Heerink M., Kröse B. J. A., Evers V., Wielinga B. J. (2006). Studying the acceptance of a robotic agent by elderly users. Int. J. Assist. Robot. Mechatronics 7, 33–43.
    1. Hirsch T., Forlizzi J., Hyder E., Goetz J., Kurtz C., Stroback J. (2000). The ELDer project: social, emotional, and environmental factors in the design of eldercare technologies, in Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability (Arlington, VA; ).
    1. Ho J., Lee C. S. (2011). Factors underlying personalisation adoption: case of mobile telephony. IJSTM 15, 281–297. 10.1504/IJSTM.2011.040380
    1. Libin A., Cohen-Mansfield J. (2004). Therapeutic robocat for nursing home residents with dementia: preliminary inquiry. Am. J. Alzheimers Dis. Other Demen. 19, 111–116. 10.1177/153331750401900209
    1. MacDorman K. F., Ishiguro H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interact. Stud. 7, 297–337. 10.1075/is.7.3.03mac
    1. McGuire S. L., Klein D. A., Chen S.-L. (2008). Ageism revisited: a study measuring ageism in East Tennessee, USA. Nurs. Health Sci. 10, 11–16. 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2007.00336.x
    1. Meng Q., Lee M. H. (2006). Design issues for assistive robotics for the elderly. Adv. Eng. Inform. 20, 171–186. 10.1016/j.aei.2005.10.003
    1. Mordoch E., Osterreicher A., Guse L., Roger K., Thompson G. (2013). Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature review. Maturitas 74, 14–20. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.10.015
    1. Moyle W., Jones C., Cooke M., O'Dwyer S., Sung B., Drummond S. (2014). Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasibility study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatrics. 14:7. 10.1186/1471-2318-14-7
    1. Nelson T. D. (2005). Ageism: prejudice against our feared future self. J. Soc. Issues 61, 207–221. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00402.x
    1. Neven L. (2010). ‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Soc. Health Ill. 32, 335–347. 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01218.x
    1. Orrell M., Hancock G. A., Liyanage K. C., Woods B., Challis D., Hoe J. (2008). The needs of people with dementia in care homes: the perspectives of users, staff and family caregivers. Int. Psychogeriatr. 20, 941–951. 10.1017/S1041610208007266
    1. Portet F., Ousset P. J., Visser P. J., Frisoni G. B., Nobili F., Scheltens P., et al. . (2006). Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in medical practice: a critical review of the concept and new diagnostic procedure. Report of the MCI Working Group of the European Consortium on Alzheimer's Disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 77, 714–718. 10.1136/jnnp.2005.085332
    1. Pino M., Boulay M., Rigaud A.-S. (2013). Acceptance of social assistive robots to support older adults with cognitive impairment and their caregivers. Alzheimers Dement. 9, P342 10.1016/j.jalz.2013.04.205
    1. R Development Core Team (2011). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Available online at:
    1. Rabbitt S. M., Kazdin A. E., Scassellati B. (2015). Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 35, 35–46. 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.07.001
    1. Rich C., Sidner C. L. (2009). Robots and avatars as hosts, advisors, companions, and jesters. AI Magazine 30, 29–41 (Accessed, October 12 2013).
    1. Robinson H., MacDonald B. A., Kerse N., Broadbent E. (2013). Suitability of healthcare robots for a dementia unit and suggested improvements. JAMDA 14, 34–40. 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.09.006
    1. Scopelliti M., Giuliani M. V., Fornara F. (2005). Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. UAIS 4, 146–155. 10.1007/s10209-005-0118-1
    1. Sharkey A., Sharkey N. (2010). Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inform. Technol. 14, 27–40. 10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6
    1. Shibata T., Wada K. (2010). Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly-a mini-review. Gerontology 57, 378–386. 10.1159/000319015
    1. Sparrow R., Sparrow L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Machines 16, 141–161. 10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6
    1. Strauss A., Corbin J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Publications.
    1. Sung J. Y., Grinter R. E., Christensen H. I. (2009). Pimp my Roomba: designing for personalization, in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA; ).
    1. Topo P., Saarikalle K., Begley E., Cahill S., Holthe T., Macijauskiene J. (2007). I don't know about the past or the future, but today it's Friday”—Evaluation of a time aid for people with dementia. Technol. Disabil. 19, 121–131.
    1. Topo P. (2009). Technology studies to meet the needs of people with dementia and their caregivers: a literature review. J. Appl. Gerontol. 28, 5–37. 10.1177/0733464808324019
    1. van der Roest H. G., Meiland F. J., van Hout H. P., Jonker C., Droes R. M. (2008). Validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the Camberwell assessment of need for the elderly in community-dwelling people with dementia. Int. Psychogeriatr. 20, 1273–1290. 10.1017/S1041610208007400
    1. Venkatesh V., Morris M. G., Davis G. B., Davis F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478. 10.2307/30036540
    1. Walters M. L., Koay K. L., Syrdal D. S., Dautenhahn K., Te Boekhorst R. (2009). Preferences and perceptions of robot appearance and embodiment in human-robot interaction trials, in Proceedings: Symposium at the AISB09 Convention (Edinburgh: ).
    1. Wu Y.-H., Fassert C., Rigaud A.-S. (2012). Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch. Gerontol. Geriat. 54, 121–126. 10.1016/j.archger.2011.02.003
    1. Wu Y.-H., Wrobel J., Cornuet M., Kerhervé H., Damnée S., Rigaud A.-S. (2014). Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human-robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting. Clin. Interv. Aging 9, 801–811. 10.2147/CIA.S56435
    1. Young J. E., Hawkins R., Sharlin E., Igarashi T. (2009). Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 95–108. 10.1007/s12369-008-0006-y

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi