Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Task and Design Requirements for an Affordable Mobile Service Robot for Elder Care in an All-Inclusive Care for Elders Assisted-Living Setting

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The high cost of elder care combined with the shortage of caregivers lead us to consider how service robots can be affordably leveraged to support the independence of elders and the work of their caregivers and clinicians. Our objective is to gain design insight into tasks older adults desire to accomplish daily in a low-resource, assisted living setting and how an affordable service robot could suit. A need-finding design approach consisting of focus groups and surveys was completed with three stakeholders groups: Elders, Clinicians, and Caregivers. Stakeholders were asked to identify and then prioritize service tasks by importance and frustration. Thirty-six unique high priority tasks were identified. Instrumental activities of daily living, a desire to have their preferences known, leisure activities, and increased opportunities for socialization were the most important tasks that the elders wanted a low-cost mobile service robot to address. Clinicians and caregivers prioritized highly safety-related reminders and assistance in complying with care plans in assessment of elder task needs. Service robots exist that do some, but not all of these desired tasks. An effective and affordable service robot requires design trade-offs in terms of cost, preference and complexity. A low-cost robot targeting reminders, companion walking, hydration and fetching assistance was suggested as an initial prototype. Prototypes may address high priority desires of all stakeholders, but robots that can intervene and affect long-lasting changes in elder care are still needed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services (2010), www.longtermcare.gov. Accessed 15 Mar 2016

  2. Biggs S (2014) Precarious ageing versus the policy of indifference: international trends in the G20. Australas J Ageing 33:226–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Morgan PS (2003) Is low fertility a twenty-first-century demographic crisis? Demography 40(4):589–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nations United (2013) Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division, World Population Prospects: the 2012 revision. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf

  5. Bowling A, Stenner P (2011) Which measure of quality of life performs best in older age? A comparison of the OPQOL, CASP-19 and WHOQOL-OLD. J Epidemiol Commun Health 65(3):273–280. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2009.087668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ball MM, Perkins MM, Whittington FJ, Hollingsworth C, King SV, Combs BL (2004) Independence in assisted living. J Aging Study 18(4):467–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Freedman V, Spillman B (2014) Disability and care needs among older Americans. Millbank Q 92(3):509–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. LIFE (Living Independently for the Elderly). Pennsylvania Department of Human Services.http://www.dhs.pa.gov/citizens/alternativestonursinghomes/lifelivingindependencefortheelderly/. Accessed 2016

  9. Hirth V, Baskins J, Dever-Bumba M (2009) Program of all-inclusive care(PACE): past, present, and future. J Am Med Dir Assoc 10(3):155–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2008.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schulz R, Wahl H-W, Matthews JT, De Vito Dabbs A, Beach SR, Czaja S (2015) Advancing the aging and technology agenda in gerontology. Gerontologist 55(5):724–734. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Connelly K, Laghari K, Mokhtari Falk T (2014) Approaches to understanding the impact of technologies for aging in place: a mini-review. Gerontechnology 60:282–288

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mitnzer T, Chen T, Kemp C, Rogers W (2014) Identifying the potential for robotics to assist older adults in different living environments. Int J Soc Robot 6:213–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0218-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smarr C, Mitzner T, Beer JM, Prakash A, Chen T, Kemp C, Rogers W (2013) Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int J Soc Robot 6(2):229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0220-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction—a survey. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y

  16. Shibata T, Wada K (2011) Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of theelderly—a mini-review. Gerontology 57(4):378–386. https://doi.org/10.1159/000319015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yu R, Hui E, Lee J, Poon D, Ng A, Sit K, Ip K, Yeung F, Wong M, Shibata T, Woo J (2015) Use of a therapeutic, socially assistive pet robot (paro) in improving mood and stimulating social interaction and communication for people with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 4(2):e45. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.4189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Peterson S, Houston S, Qin H, Tague C, Studley J (2016) The utilization of robotic pets in dementia care. J Alzheimer’s Dis preprint 1–6

  19. Wada K, Shibata T (2007) Living with seal robots—its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):972–980. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.906261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sony Aibo Tribute Site. http://www.sony-aibo.com/. Accessed 2016

  21. Naganuma MM, Ohkubo E, Kato N (2015) Studies in health technology and informatics: use of robotic pets in providing stimulation for nursing home residents with dementia. Stud Health Technol Inf 217:1009–12. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-566-1-1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsui KM, Norton A, Brooks DJ, McCann E, Medvedev MS, Yanco HA (2013) Design and development of two generations of semi-autonomous social telepresence robots. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA). IEEE, pp 1–6

  23. Seelye A, Wild K, Larimer N, Maxwell S, Kearns P, Kaye J (2012) Reactions to a remote-controlled video-communication robot in seniors’ homes: a pilot study of feasibility and acceptance. Telemed e-Health 18(10):755–759. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2012.0026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilk R, Johnson MJ (2014) Usability feedback of patients and therapists on a conceptual mobile service robot for inpatient and home-based stroke rehabilitation. In: 5th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), 12–15 Aug 2014, Sao Paolo, Brazil, pp 438–443. https://doi.org/10.1109/IOROB.2014.6913816

  25. Eftring H, Frennert S (2016) Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors. Z Gerontol Geriatr 49(4):274–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1064-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 Geriatr 14:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Guizzo E (2010) Robosoft unveils kompai robot toassist elderly, disabled. IEEE Spectrum.http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/medical-robots/robosoft-kompai-robot-assist-elderly-disabled.Posted 9 Mar 2010 | 20:49 GMT. Accessed 2016

  28. Robotics Kompai (2016). http://kompai.com/#home. Accessed

  29. Bedaf S, Gelderblom GJ, De Witte L, Hewson D (2013) Selecting services for a service robot: evaluating the problematic activities threatening the independence of elderly persons. In: IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2013.6650458

  30. Mast M, Burmester M, Graf B, Weisshardt F, Arbeiter G, Španěl M, Materna Z, Smrž P, Kronreif G (2015) Design of the human-robot interaction for a semi-autonomous service robot to assist elderly people. In Wichert R, Klausing H (eds) Advanced technologies and societal change: ambient assisted living. 7. AAL-Kongress 2014, Berlin, Germany, 21–22 January 2014 pp 15–29. Cham et al.: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11866-6_2

  31. Smarr C-A, Prakash A, Beer JM, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2014) Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc 56(1):153–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kuwamura K, Nishio S, Sato S (2016) Can we talk through a robot as if face-to-face? Long-term fieldwork using teleoperated robot for seniors with alzheimer’s disease. Front Psychol 7:1066. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jeelani S, Dany A, Anand B, Vandana S, Maheswaran T, Rajkumar E (2015) Robotics and medicine: a scientific rainbow in hospital. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 7(Suppl 2):S381–S383. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.163460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. http://www.justocat.com/ Accessed June 2017

  35. https://joyforall.hasbro.com/en-us Accessed June 2017

  36. http://consequentialrobotics.com/miro/ Accessed June 2017

  37. https://www.intuitionrobotics.com/elliq/ Accessed June 2017

  38. http://www.gerijoy.com/ Accessed June 2017

  39. Kidd C (2015) Introducing the Mabu personal healthcare companion. June 12, 2015. Catalia health. http://www.cataliahealth.com/introducing-the-mabu-personal-healthcare-companion/ Accessed June 2017

  40. Guizzo E (2015) Jibo is as good as social robots get. But is that good enough? IEEE spectrum. Posted 23 Dec 2015 | 16:03 GMT

  41. https://www.heykuri.com/ Accessed June 2017

  42. https://zenbo.asus.com/ Accessed June 2017

  43. Aido Advanced Social Robot for Smart Home Inspired by Dolphins. http://www.tuvie.com/aidoadvancedsocialrobotforsmarthomeinspiredbydolphins/. Accessed June 2017

  44. www.bluefrogrobotics.com. Accessed June 2017

  45. https://www.ald.softbankrobotics.com/en/cool-robots/pepper. Accessed June 2017

  46. Dahl T, Boulos M, Kamel Boulos MN (2013) Robots in health and social care: a complementary technology to home care and telehealthcare? Robotics 3(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gerling K, Hebesberger D, Dondrup C, Körtner T, Hanheide M (2016) Robot deployment in long-term care: case study on using a mobile robot to support physiotherapy. Zeitschrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie 49(4):288–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1065-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Khosravi P, Ghapanchi AH (2016) Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: a systematic literature review. Int J Med Inform 85(1):17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sefcik JS, Johnson MJ, Yim M, Lau T, Vivio N, Mucchiani C, Cacchione PZ (2017). Stakeholders’ perceptions inform the development of a low-cost mobile robot for older adults. Clinical nursing research. SAGE Publications Inc, pp 1–20, September 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773817730517

  50. Katzman R, Brown T, Fuld P, Peck A, Schechter R, Schimmel H (1983) Validation of a short orientation-memory concentration test of cognitive impairment. Am J Psyhciatry 140:734–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Elo S, Kyngas H (2008) The qualtitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 62(1):107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measure to achieve trust worthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24(105):112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hseih H, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rager KB (2005) Self-care and the qualitative researcher: when collecting data can break your heart. Educ Res 34(4):23–27. https://doi.org/10.3102/-13189X034004023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Byrne MM (2001) Evaluating findings of qualitative research. AORN J 73(3):703–706

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  56. Klamer T, Ben Allouch S, Heylen D (2011) “Adventures of Harvey”–use, acceptance of and relationship building with a social robot in a domestic environment. In: Lamers MH, Verbeek FJ (eds) Human-robot personal relationships. HRPR 2010. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 59. Springer, Berlin, pp 74–82

  57. Datta C, Tiwari P, Yang HY, Broadbent E, MacDonald BA (2012) Utilizing a closed loop medication management workflow through an engaging interactive robot for older people. In: e-Health networking, applications and services (Healthcom), 2012 IEEE 14th international conference on (pp. 313–316). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HealthCom.2012.6379427

  58. Tiwari P, Warren J, Day K, Datta C (2011) Comprehensive support for self-management of medications by a networked robot for the elderly. In: Health care and informatics review online. www.hinz.org, ser. HINZ ’11

  59. Neven L (2010) ‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociology of health & illness, vol 32, no 2 2010 ISSN 0141–9889, pp 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01218.x

  60. Mucchiani C, Sharma S, Johnson M, Sefcik J, Vivio N, Huang J, Cacchione P, Johnson M, Rai R, Canoso A, Lau T, Yim M (2017) Evaluating older adults’ interaction with a mobile assistive robot. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2017, Vancouver, Canada, 24–28 September 2017

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the participants in this study, Emily Dieckmeyer and Suneet Sharma for their assistance with data collection and coding of the data. We are also grateful to the University of Pennsylvania Advanced Qualitative Collective for their support, guidance and feedback. We thank the Council of Elders at the PACE and SAL staff and members for allowing us to be able to complete the research at the center. We also thank Nicholas Vivio for his work in completing data collection and analysis on the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rehabilitation Robotics Lab, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Michelle J Johnson

  2. Rehabilitation Robotics Lab, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Megan A. Johnson

  3. School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Justine S. Sefcik

  4. Mercy Living Independently for Elders-West Philadelphia and the School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Pamela Z. Cacchione

  5. School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Caio Mucchiani

  6. Chief Robot Whisperer, Savioke, Santa Clara, CA, USA

    Tessa Lau

  7. Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Mark Yim

Authors
  1. Michelle J Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justine S. Sefcik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pamela Z. Cacchione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caio Mucchiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tessa Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mark Yim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle J Johnson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This study was registered with our local human subject ethics IRB board and approved under IRB# 820915. Consents were obtained from all participants. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration #: NCT02807506

Additional information

Research supported by Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and National Science Foundation Partnerships for Innovation: Building Innovation Capacity program; Grant #1430216; IIP-1430216.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, M.J., Johnson, M.A., Sefcik, J.S. et al. Task and Design Requirements for an Affordable Mobile Service Robot for Elder Care in an All-Inclusive Care for Elders Assisted-Living Setting. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 989–1008 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0436-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0436-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation