Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting Human Autonomy in a Robot-Assisted Medication Sorting Task

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

Abstract

Medication management is a significant challenge for older adults, and the resultant drug-related problems are linked with hospitalizations and increased need for nursing homes. In this work, we explored the role of a socially assistive robot for one aspect of medication management: sorting. Specifically, we proposed a human-centric approach towards the design of a robot assisting in a medication sorting task. The approach is based on the analyses of occupational therapists who are trained in evaluating and assisting older adults in important self-care skills and emphasizes the role of autonomy on the part of the person performing a medication sorting task. We developed and evaluated two robot prototypes that assist a person in a medication sorting task. In both prototypes, evaluated by students \((\hbox {N}=31)\) at an American university, we found that subjects voluntarily greeting the robot experienced the emotion of the interaction differently from non-greeters. Greeters of the physical robot gave a lower emotional rating of the interaction, whereas greeters of the virtual robot found the emotion of the experience to be better than the non-greeters.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We recognize that this definition of a correct action is not complete, but it was sufficient for this prototype and was improved in the next prototype.

References

  1. American Journal of Occupational Therapy: Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process (3rd edn) (2014)

  2. Association AOT et al (2015) Occupational therapy code of ethics (2015). Am J Occup Ther 69:S17–S26

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bainbridge JL, Ruscin JM (2009) Challenges of treatment adherence in older patients with parkinson’s disease. Drugs Aging 26(2):145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot cs 3(1):41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Banks MR, Willoughby LM, Banks WA (2008) Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. J Am Med Dir Assoc 9(3):173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baum E (2006) Pill dispenser. US patent 7,100,793

  7. Briggs P, Scheutz M, Tickle-Degnen L (2015) Are robots ready for administering health status surveys? first results from an HRI study with subjects with Parkinson’s disease. In: Proceedings of the 10 annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, Portland, pp 327–334

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burnier M (2006) Medication adherence and persistence as the cornerstone of effective antihypertensive therapy. Am J Hypertens 19(11):1190–1196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carlson MC, Fried LP, Xue QL, Tekwe C, Brandt J (2005) Validation of the hopkins medication schedule to identify difficulties in taking medications. J Gerontol Ser A: Biol Sci Med Sci 60(2):217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chan M, Nicklason F, Vial J (2001) Adverse drug events as a cause of hospital admission in the elderly. Int Med J 31(4):199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Datta C, Yang HY, Tiwari P, Kuo IH, MacDonald BA (2011) End user programming to enable closed-loop medication management using a healthcare robot. Social Science, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dayer L, Heldenbrand S, Anderson P, Gubbins PO, Martin BC (2013) Smartphone medication adherence apps: potential benefits to patients and providers. J Am Pharm Assoc 53(2):172–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Doggrell SA (2010) Adherence to medicines in the older-aged with chronic conditions. Drugs Aging 27(3):239–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ (2001) Drug-related morbidity and mortality: updating the cost-of-illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc 41(2):192–199 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2005) Defining socially assistive robotics. In: ICORR 2005. 9th international conference on rehabilitation robotics, 2005, pp 465–468

  17. Feil-seifer D, Matarić MJ (2011) Ethical principles for socially assistive robotics. Robot Autom Mag 18(1):24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Graf B, Hans M, Schraft RD (2004) Care-o-bot II—development of a next generation robotic home assistant. Auton Robots 16(2):193–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hayes TL, Larimer N, Adami A, Kaye JA (2009) Medication adherence in healthy elders: small cognitive changes make a big difference. J Aging Health 21:567–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Haynes RB, Ackloo E, Sahota N, McDonald HP, Yao X (2008) Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16(2):CD000011

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hebesberger D, Dondrup C, Koertner T, Gisinger C, Pripfl J (2016) Lessons learned from the deployment of a long-term autonomous robot as companion in physical therapy for older adults with dementia: a mixed methods study. In: The 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 27–34

  22. Heerink M, Kröse B, Wielinga B, Evers V (2006) Human–robot user studies in eldercare: lessons learned. In: International conference on smart homes and health telematics, pp 31–38

  23. Hemmesch AR (2011) The stigmatizing effects of facial masking and abnormal bodily movement on older adults’ first impressions of individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Brandeis University

  24. Johnson JA, Bootman JL (1995) Drug-related morbidity and mortality: a cost-of-illness model. Arch Intern Med 155(18):1949–1956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kanamori M, Suzuki M, Tanaka M (2002) Maintenance and improvement of quality of life among elderly patients using a pet-type robot. Jpn J Geriatr 39(2):214–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kidd CD, Breazeal C (2004) Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In: Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2004 (IROS 2004), vol 4. IEEE, pp 3559–3564

  27. Lamere P, Kwok P, Gouvea E, Raj B, Singh R, Walker W, Warmuth M, Wolf P (2003) The CMU sphinx-4 speech recognition system. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP 2003), Hong Kong, vol 1, pp 2–5, Citeseer

  28. Lewis A (1997) Non-compliance: a $100 billion problem. Remington Rep 5(4):14–15

    Google Scholar 

  29. Li J (2015) The benefit of being physically present: a survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. Int J Hum Comput Stud 77:23–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li J (2015) The benefit of being physically present: a survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents. Int J Hum Comput Stud 77(January 2015):23–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. MacLaughlin EJ, Raehl CL, Treadway AK, Sterling TL, Zoller DP, Bond CA (2005) Assessing medication adherence in the elderly: which tools to use in clinical practice? Drugs Aging 22(3):231–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Manning KJ, Clarke C, Lorry A, Weintraub D, Wilkinson JR, Duda JE, Moberg PJ (2012) Medication management and neuropsychological performance in parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuropsycholog 26(1):45–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Marcum ZA, Sevick MA, Handler SM (2013) Medication nonadherence: a diagnosable and treatable medical condition. JAMA 309(20):2105–2106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Matarić MJ, Eriksson J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Winstein CJ (2007) Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. J NeuroEng Rehab 4:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Muir BM, Moray N (1996) Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39(3):429–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Osterberg L, Blaschke T, Koop CE (2005) Adherence to Medication. N Engl J Med 353:487–497. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra050100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pollack M, Brown L, Colbry D (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. In: AAAI workshop on automation as eldercare, pp 85–91

  38. Prakash A, Beer JM, Deyle T, Smarr CA, Chen TL, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2013) Older adults’ medication management in the home: How can robots help? In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 283–290

  39. Rogers J, Holm M (1994) Performance assessment of self-care skills (pass-home) version 3.1. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh [unpublished assessment tool]

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sahai A, Breede SK, Topliffe RO, Topliffe DA (1999) Medication dispensing system. US patent 5,971,594

  41. Schell BA, Gillen G, Scaffa M, Cohn ES (2013) Willard and Spackman’s occupational therapy. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  42. Scheutz M, Schermerhorn P, Kramer J, Anderson D (2007) First steps toward natural human-like HRI. Auton Robots 22(4):411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Smarr CA, Prakash A, Beer JM, Mitzner TL, Kemp CC, Rogers WA (2012) Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 56th annual meeting, pp 153–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Smith CA, Ellsworth PC (1985) Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48(4):813–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sokol MC, Mcguigan KA, Verbrugge RR, Epstein RS (2005) Impact of medication adherence on hospitalization risk and healthcare cost. Med Care 43(6):521–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Stilley CS, Bender CM, Dunbar-Jacob J, Sereika S, Ryan CM (2010) The impact of cognitive function on medication management: three studies. Health Psychol 29(1):50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tamura T, Yonemitsu S, Itoh A, Oikawa D, Kawakami A, Higashi Y, Fujimooto T, Nakajima K (2004) Is an entertainment robot useful in the care of elderly people with severe dementia? J Gerontol Ser A: Biol Sci Med Sci 59(1):M83–M85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tapus A (2009) The role of physical embodiment of a therapist robot for individuals with cognitive impairments. In: Virtual rehabilitation international conference, 2009

  49. Wada K, Shibata T (2006) Robot therapy in a care house—its sociopsychological and physiological effects on the residents. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 3966–3971

  50. Wada K, Shibata T (2007) Robot therapy in a care house—change of relationship among the residents and seal robot during a 2-month long study. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):972–980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wada K, Shibata T, Saito T, Tanie K (2002) Robot assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Washington, DC, pp 1416–1421

  52. Wade R, Clancey B, Michaeli J (2016) Improvement in antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medication persistence using a mobile technology application. Value Health 19(3):A306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wainer J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Shell DA, Matarić MJ (2006) The role of physical embodiment in human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings—IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 117–122

  54. Warner I (1998) Telemedicine in home health care: the current status of practice. Home Health Care Manag Pract 10(2):62–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wilcock W, Townsend E (2014) Occupational justice. Willard and Spackman’s Occupational Therapy, pp 541–552

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by NSF (Grant No. IIS-1316809).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

    Jason R. Wilson, Nah Young Lee, Annie Saechao, Linda Tickle-Degnen & Matthias Scheutz

  2. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Jason R. Wilson

Authors
  1. Jason R. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nah Young Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Annie Saechao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linda Tickle-Degnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthias Scheutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason R. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

This project was in part supported by NSF Grant #IIS-1316809.

Appendix

Appendix

The following 19 questions were provided to each participant. Question 10 had a negative working in the first evaluation and was updated for the second evaluation (working from 2nd presented here).

For each question, a 5-point Likert-scale was provided, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

  1. 1.

    The robot is able to provide you with assistance in the task.

  2. 2.

    The assistance the robot provides is correct.

  3. 3.

    I am able to complete the task more efficiently with the assistance of the robot.

  4. 4.

    When the robot corrects me I feel included to follows its instructions.

  5. 5.

    I trust the robot to (correctly) provide assistance.

  6. 6.

    I expect the robot to act in a consistent and predictable manner.

  7. 7.

    The robot is able to provide physical support.

  8. 8.

    The robot is able to provide emotional support.

  9. 9.

    The robot paid attention to me.

  10. 10.

    The robot used action and words that made sense to me.

  11. 11.

    The robot helped me understand how to complete the task.

  12. 12.

    The robot acted in a manner that ensured my safety.

  13. 13.

    The robot is able to warn me of potentially unsafe medication administration.

  14. 14.

    My family would approve of the way the robot assisted me.

  15. 15.

    My care providers would approve of the way the robot assisted me.

  16. 16.

    I felt pleasant during the task.

  17. 17.

    I felt in control of what was happening during the task.

  18. 18.

    I felt I understood what was happening during the task.

  19. 19.

    I felt responsible for completing the task.

    In both evaluations, we also included the following 20th question:

  20. 20.

    Do you have anything else you want to tell us about the robot or this task?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, J.R., Lee, N.Y., Saechao, A. et al. Supporting Human Autonomy in a Robot-Assisted Medication Sorting Task. Int J of Soc Robotics 10, 621–641 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0456-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0456-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation