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

Clinical Interventions in Aging

Volumn 9, Issue , 2014, Pages 801-811

  Wu, Ya Huei ^a,b   Wrobel, Jérémy ^a,b   Cornuet, Mélanie ^a,b   Kerhervé, Hélène ^a,b   Damnée, Souad ^a,b   Rrigaud, Anne Sophie ^a,b  

^a Paris Descartes University   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

Assistive robot; HRI; Human robot interaction; Robot acceptance; Technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVICE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOETHICS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; HUMAN ROBOT INTERACTION; LABORATORY TEST; MALE; MAN MACHINE INTERACTION; MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; ROBOTICS; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SOCIAL INTERACTION; STIGMA; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF HELP DEVICE; VERY ELDERLY;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT; QUESTIONNAIRES; ROBOTICS; SELF-HELP DEVICES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84900414639     PISSN: 11769092     EISSN: 11781998     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S56435     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Smarr CA, Prakash A, Beer JM, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA. Older adults' preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. Poster presented at: 56th Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; October 22-26, 2012; Boston, MA.
2. Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Robot. 2009;1(4):319-330.
3. Seelye AM, Wild KV, Larimer N, Maxwell S, Kearns P, Kaye JA. Reactions to a remote-controlled video-communication robot in seniors' homes: a pilot study of feasibility and acceptance. Telemed J E Health. 2012;18(10):755-759.
4. Ezer N, Fisk AD, Rogers WA. More than a servant: self-reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home. Poster presented at: 53rd Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; October 19-23, 2009; San Antonio, TX.
5. Blackman T. Care robots for the supermarket shelf: a product gap in assistive technologies. Ageing Soc. 2013;1(1):1-19.
6. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology. 2009;8(2):94-103.
7. Kuo I, Rabindran J, Broadbent E, et al. Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. Poster presented at: 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN); September 27-October 2, 2009; Toyama, Japan.
8. Broadbent E, Kuo IH, Lee YI, et al. Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(5):608-613.
9. Stafford RQ, MacDonald BA, Jayawardena C, Wegner DM, Broadbent E. Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int J Soc Robot. 2014;6(1):17-32.
10. 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.
11. Jay GM, Willis SL. Influence of direct computer experience on older adults' attitudes toward computers. J Gerontol. 1992;47(4): P250-P257.
12. Petersen RC, Doody R, Kurz A, et al. Current concepts in mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol. 2001;58(12):1985-1992.
13. Guba EG, Lincoln Y. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1989.
14. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Research practice settings: a case study approach. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1999:71-88.
15. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.
16. Katzman R. Can late life social or leisure activities delay the onset of dementia? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43(5):583-584.
17. Mahmood A, Yamamoto T, Lee M, Steggell C. Perceptions and use of gerotechnology: implications for aging in place. J Hous Elderly. 2008; 22(1-2):104-126.
18. Morris A, Goodman J, Brading H. Internet use and non-use: views of older users. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2007;6(1):43-57.
19. Selwyn N, Gorard S, Furlong J, Madden L. Older adults' use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing Soc. 2003;23(5):561-582.
20. Heart T, Kalderon E. Older adults: Are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(11):e209-e231.
21. Gucher C. Technologies du "Bien vieillir et du lien social": questions d'acceptabilité, enjeux de sens et de continuité de l'existence-la canne et le brise-vitre ["Good ageing and social links" technology: questions of acceptability, direction and continued existence - walking stick and emergency glass-breaking hammer]. Gerontol Soc. 2012;2(141):27-39. French.
22. Porter EJ, Benson JJ, Matsuda S. Older homebound women: negotiating reliance on a cane or walker. Qual Health Res. 2011;21(4):534-548.
23. Parette P, Scherer M. Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2004;39(3):217-226.
24. Neven L. 'But obviously not for me': robots, laboratories and the defant identity of elder test users. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32(2): 335-347.
25. McLean A. Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues. Ethics Inf Technol. 2011;13(4):313-326.
26. Ganyo M, Dunn M, Hope T. Ethical issues in the use of fall detectors. Ageing Soc. 2011;31(8):1350-1367.
27. Blanchard-Fields F, Kalinauskas AS. Challenges for the current status of adult development theories: a new century of progress. In: Smith MC, Defrates-Densch N, editors. Handbook of Research on Adult Learning and Development. New York: Routledge; 2009:3-33.
28. Mace R. Universal design: Barrier free environments for everyone. Designers West. 1985;33(1):147-152.