Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptions of Socially Assistive Robots Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Social Robotics (ICSR 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13818))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Socially assistive robots (SARs) have many potential benefits for older adults, such as reducing loneliness and assisting with healthcare interventions. However, little is known about how they are perceived by older adults. This study aimed to increase this understanding by using online, semi-structured interviews with community dwelling older adults. Acceptance of SARs was higher in those aged ≥ 70 years when compared to those aged 55–69 years. Declining health status was a common influencing factor, with company and assistance with daily activities highlighted as potential advantages. However, there were concerns among those aged ≥ 70 years that the introduction of SARs may lead to increased sedentary behaviour and a reduction in physical human contact. Overall, SARs are perceived to be useful among older adults, and developers should be aware that willingness to engage with this type of technology is dependent on several factors such as age and circumstance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Morgan, E.: Living Longer and Old-Age Dependency—What Does the Future Hold? Office for National Statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglongerandoldagedependencywhatdoesthefuturehold/2019-06-24, last accessed 2022/09/14

  2. Chen, Y., Thompson, E.A.: Understanding factors that influence success of home- and community-based services in keeping older adults in community settings. J Aging Health. 22(3), 267–291 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264309356593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Camp, N., Johnston, J., Lewis, M. G., Zecca, M., Di Nuovo, A., Hunter, K., & Magistro, D. Perceptions of in-home monitoring technology for activities of daily living: semistructured interview study with community-dwelling older adults. JMIR Aging 5(2). (2022) e33714

    Google Scholar 

  4. Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., Kerse, N., Broadbent, E.: The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 14, 661–667 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Camp, N., Fernandes Ramos, A. C., Hunter, K., Boat, R., Magistro, D.: Differences in self-control, self-efficacy and depressive symptoms between active and inactive middle-aged and older adults after 1 year of COVID restrictions. Aging Mental Health 1–6 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bloom, D.E., et al.: Macroeconomic implications of population ageing and selected policy responses. Lancet 385, 649–657 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Frennert, S., Östlund, B.: Seven matters of concern of social robots and older people. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6(2), 299–310 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cavallo, F., Esposito, R., Limosani, R., Manzi, A., Bevilacqua, R., Felici, E., Di Nuovo, A., Cangelosi, A., Lattanzio, F., Dario, P.: Robotic services acceptance in smart environments with older adults: user satisfaction and acceptability study. J. Med. Internet. Res. 20(9), e264(2018). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9460]

  9. Camp, N., Lewis, M., Hunter, K., Magistro, D., Johnston, J., Zecca, M., Di Nuovo, A. Older adults’ perceptions of socially assistive robots. In: UKRAS21 Conference: Robotics at home Proceedings 21–22. (2021) https://doi.org/10.31256/Ub8Vp6N

  10. Feil-Seifer D, Mataric M. Defining socially assistive robotics. In: Presented at 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, IL, pp. 465–468. (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Whelan, S., Murphy, K., Barrett, E., Krusche, C., Santorelli, A., Casey, D. (2018). Factors affecting the acceptability of social robots by older adults including people with dementia or cognitive impairment: a literature review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 10(5), 643–668. (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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. Gerontologist 59(1), e37–e51 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Camp, N., et al.: Technology used to recognize activities of daily living in community-dwelling older adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18(1), 163 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Candela, F., Zucchetti, G., Magistro, D.: Individual correlates of autonomy in activities of daily living of institutionalized elderly individuals: an exploratory study in an holistic perspective. Holist. Nurs. Pract. 27(5), 284–291 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Candela, F., Zucchetti, G., Ortega, E., Rabaglietti, E., Magistro, D.: Preventing loss of basic activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living in elderly. Holist. Nurs. Pract. 29(5), 313–322 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DiNuovo, A., et al.: The multi-modal interface of Robot-Era multi-robot services tailored for the elderly. Intel. Serv. Robot. 11(1), 109–126 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-017-0237-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiltshire, G., Ronkainen, N.: A realist approach to thematic analysis: making sense of qualitative data through experiential, inferential and dispositional themes. J. Crit. Realism. 20(2), 159–180 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2021.1894909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Karlsson, J.C.: Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, UK (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Maxwell, J.A.: Using numbers in qualitative research. Qual Inq. 16(6), 475–482 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Arras K, Cerqui D. Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000-people survey. Technical report Nr 0605-001 Autonomous Systems Lab Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, EPFL (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Aartsen, M., Jylhä, M.: Onset of loneliness in older adults: results of a 28 year prospective study. Eur. J. Ageing. 8(1), 31–38 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-011-0175-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pfadenhauer, M., Dukat, C.: Robot caregiver or robotsupported caregiving? Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(3), 393–406 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0284-0]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(4), 319–330 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Salvini, P., Laschi, C., Dario, P.: Design for acceptability: improving robots’ coexistence in human society. Int J Soc Robot. 2(4), 451–460 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pollmann, K.: The modality card deck: Co-creating multi-modal behavioral expressions for social robots with older adults. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 5(7), 33 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Daily, S.B., James, M.T., Cherry, D., Porter III, J.J., Darnell, S.S., Isaac, J., Roy, T.: Affective computing: historical foundations, current applications, and future trends. Emot. Affect Hum. Fact. Hum. Comput. Interact. 213–231 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The work of Alessandro Di Nuovo has been supported by the European Union under the Horizon 2020 Grant n. 955778 (PERSEO) and by the UK EPSRC with the grant EP/W000741/1 (EMERGENCE).”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sport, Health and Performance Enhancement Research Centre, Department of Sport Science, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

    Nicola Camp, Kirsty Hunter, Julie Johnston & Daniele Magistro

  2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

    Alessandro Di Nuovo

  3. Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

    Massimiliano Zecca

  4. Qualisys AB, Göteborg, Sweden

    Martin Lewis

Authors
  1. Nicola Camp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Di Nuovo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kirsty Hunter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julie Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Massimiliano Zecca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martin Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Daniele Magistro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Camp .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Filippo Cavallo

  2. Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

    John-John Cabibihan

  3. University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Laura Fiorini

  4. University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Alessandra Sorrentino

  5. Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA

    Hongsheng He

  6. Qingdao University, Qingdao, China

    Xiaorui Liu

  7. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan

    Yoshio Matsumoto

  8. National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Shuzhi Sam Ge

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Camp, N. et al. (2022). Perceptions of Socially Assistive Robots Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults. In: Cavallo, F., et al. Social Robotics. ICSR 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13818. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24670-8_48

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24670-8_48

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24669-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24670-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation