skip to main content
10.1145/3371382.3378303acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Cancer Genetic Counseling by Humanoid Robot: Modeling Multimodal Communication of Health Risk

Published:01 April 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

We describe the design and evaluation of a humanoid robot that explains inherited breast cancer genetics, and motivates women to obtain cancer genetic testing. The counseling dialogue is modeled after a human cancer genetic counselor, extended with data visualizations and nonverbal behavior. In a quasi-experimental pilot study, we demonstrated that interaction with the robot leads to significant increases in cancer genetics knowledge.

References

  1. Laurel D. Riek. 2017. Healthcare robotics. Communications of the ACM. (2017). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3127874.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Juan Fasola and Maja Mataric. 2013. A Socially Assistive Robot Exercise Coach for the Elderly. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction. 2, 2 (2013), 3--32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.2.2.fasola.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Cory D. Kidd and Cynthia Breazeal. 2008. Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction. 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS (2008), 3230--3235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Katie Winkle, Séverin Lemaignan, Praminda Caleb-Solly, Ute Leonards, Ailie Turton, and Paul Bremner. 2019. Effective Persuasion Strategies for Socially Assistive Robots. 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (Seoul, South Korea, 2019), 277--285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Brian Jack, Timothy Bickmore, Megan Hempstead, Leanne Yinusa-Nyahkoon, Ekaterina Sadikova, Suzanne Mitchell, Paula Gardiner, Fatima Adigun, Brian Penti, Daniel Schulman, and Karla Damus. 2015. Reducing preconception risks among African American women with conversational agent technology. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 28, 4 (2015), 441--451. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2015.04.140327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jared W. Magnani, Courtney L. Schlusser, Everlyne Kimani, Bruce L. Rollman, Michael K. Paasche-Orlow, and Timothy W. Bickmore. 2017. The Atrial Fibrillation Health Literacy Information Technology System: Pilot Assessment. JMIR Cardio. 1, 2 (2017), e7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2196/cardio.8543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Timothy Bickmore, Laura Pfeifer, and Brian Jack. 2009. Taking the Time to Care: Empowering Low Health Literacy Hospital Patients with Virtual Nurse Agents. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI'09) (2009), 1265--1274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Timothy W. Bickmore, Kathryn Puskar, Elizabeth A. Schlenk, Laura M. Pfeifer, and Susan M. Sereika. 2010. Maintaining reality: Relational agents for antipsychotic medication adherence. Interacting with Computers. 22, 4 (2010), 276--288. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.02.001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Steven J. Katz, Kevin C. Ward, Ann S. Hamilton, M. Chandler McLeod, Lauren P. Wallner, Monica Morrow, Reshma Jagsi, Sarah T. Hawley, and Allison W. Kurian. 2018. Gaps in receipt of clinically indicated genetic counseling after diagnosis of breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 36, 12 (2018), 1218--1224. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.2369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Allison W. Kurian, Kevin C. Ward, Nadia Howlader, Dennis Deapen, Ann S. Hamilton, Angela Mariotto, Daniel Miller, Lynne S. Penberthy, and Steven J. Katz. 2019. Genetic testing and results in a population-based cohort of breast cancer patients and ovarian cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 37, 15 (2019), 1305--1315. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.01854.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Jessica Lee, Lindsay R. Gubernick, Allison L. Brodsky, Julia E. Fehniger, Douglas A. Levine, Deanna Gerber, Shabnam A. Asgari, Anna Cantor, Jessica T. Martineau, Ophira M. Ginsburg, Julia A. Smith, and Bhavana Pothuri. 2018. Missed opportunities: Genetic counseling and testing among an ethnically diverse cohort of women with endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 151, 1 (2018), 153--158. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.07.023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Sari Lieberman, Amnon Lahad, Ariela Tomer, Sivan Koka, Malka BenUziyahu, Aviad Raz, and Ephrat Levy-Lahad. 2018. Familial communication and cascade testing among relatives of BRCA population screening participants. Genetics in Medicine. 20, 11 (2018), 1446--1454. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2018.26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Chris Jacobs, Christine Patch, and Susan Michie. 2018. Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review. European Journal of Human Genetics. (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0310--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Emily B. Peterson, Wen-ying Sylvia Chou, Anna Gaysynsky, Melinda Krakow, Ashley Elrick, Muin J. Khoury, and Kimberly A. Kaphingst. 2018. Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: A landscape analysis of reviews. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 8, 1 (2018), 59--70. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibx063.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jehannine C. Austin. 2010. Re-conceptualizing risk in genetic counseling: Implications for clinical practice. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 19, 3 (2010), 228--234. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-010--9279-z.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. T. M. Marteau. 1999. Communicating genetic risk information. British medical bulletin. 55, 2 (1999), 414--428. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1258/0007142991902466.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David McNeill. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Isaac M. Lipkus and Justin G. Hollands. 1999. The visual communication of risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 25, (1999), 149--163. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024191.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Melanie Price, Rachel Cameron, and Phyllis Butow. 2007. Communicating risk information: The influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Education and Counseling. 69, 1--3 (2007), 121--128. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Marilyn M. Schapira, Ann B. Nattinger, and Timothy L. McAuliffe. 2006. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. Journal of Health Communication. 11, 6 (2006), 569--582. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600829916.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Andrea J. Apter, Michael K. Paasche-Orlow, Janine T. Remillard, Ian M. Bennett, Elana Pearl Ben-Joseph, Rosanna M. Batista, James Hyde, and Rima E. Rudd. 2008. Numeracy and communication with patients: They are counting on us. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 23, 12 (2008), 2117--2124. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0803-x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Pepper: https://www.softbankrobotics.com/us/pepper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Barbara J. Grosz and Candace L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational linguistics. 12, 3 (1986), 175--204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Caryn Lerman et al. 1996. BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer: a prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes. Jama. 275, 24 (1996), 1885--1892.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Caryn Lerman, Barbara Biesecker, Judith L. Benkendorf, Jon Kerner, Andres Gomez-Caminero, Chanita Hughes, and Margaret M. Reed. 1997. Controlled trial of pretest education approaches to enhance informed decision-making for BRCA1 gene testing. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 89, 2 (1997), 148--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Cancer Genetic Counseling by Humanoid Robot: Modeling Multimodal Communication of Health Risk

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HRI '20: Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
      March 2020
      702 pages
      ISBN:9781450370578
      DOI:10.1145/3371382

      Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 April 2020

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate192of519submissions,37%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader