Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

Care-receivers with physical disabilities’ perceptions on having humanoid assistive robots as assistants: a qualitative study

Authors: Linda Sørensen, Dag Tomas Johannesen, Helinä Melkas, Hege Mari Johnsen

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

People with physical disabilities due to disease or injury face barriers to their daily activities and participation in society. Many depend on formal or informal caregivers for assistance to live independently. However, future healthcare challenges due to demographic changes threaten access to home care and assistants. Assistive technologies, such as robots for physical assistance, can support the independence and autonomy of people with physical disabilities. This study explore Norwegian care-receivers’ perceptions of using robot assistance in their homes, including preferences for tasks acceptable or unacceptable for robot assistance and the underlying reasons.

Method

Purposive sampling was employed to recruit 18 participants, aged between 18 and 77 years, with differences in physical function including diagnoses such as stroke, spinal cord injury, amputations, and muscular dystrophy. Qualitative data were gathered through four focus group interviews wherein participants watched videos featuring a humanoid assistive robot, EVEr3. The collected data underwent analysis using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes with associated sub-themes were constructed: (a) How a robot could assist in daily life, (b) The robot’s appearance and functionality, and (c) Concerns about having a robot as an assistant. The participants welcomed the idea of a future robotic assistant in areas that may contribute to an increased feeling of independence and autonomy.

Conclusion

A robot assisting in activities of daily living would need to be individually customized to meet the needs of each user in terms of which tasks to assist with, how to assist in these defined tasks, and how it is controlled.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Camebridge University Press & Assessment: Camebridge University Press & Assessment; 2024. Camebridge Dictionary.
3.
4.
The Norwegian Directorate for Children Youth and Family Affairs(Bufdir). Deltagelse Og Fritid. The Norwegian directorate for children YaFAB. editor. Bufdir.no: Bufdir; 2022.
5.
Baudin K, Pettersson C. I know my rights! A longitudinal study of discrimination due to physical inaccessibility from the perspective of Wheelchair users. Volume 306. Assistive Technology: Shaping a Sustainable and Inclusive World; 2023. p. 403.
6.
Handbook for Parliamentarians on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2007).
7.
8.
Statistisk-sentralbyrå. Sjukeheimar, heimetenester og andre omsorgstenester. 2020 18062020.
9.
Førland O, Folkestad B. Hjemmetjenestene i Norge i et befolknings og brukerperspektiv. 2016.
10.
11.
World Health Organization. Health Employment and Economic Growth: An Evidence Base. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; 2017.
12.
World Health Organization. State of the World’s Nursing 2020. 2020. Contract No.: Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
13.
Tid for handling — Personellet i en bærekraftig helse- og omsorgstjeneste. (2023).
14.
Haak M, Fänge A, Iwarsson S, Dahlin Ivanoff S. Home as a signification of independence and autonomy: experiences among very old Swedish people. Scand J Occup Ther. 2007;14(1):16–24.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Rogers JC. The Spirit of Independence: the evolution of a philosophy. Am J Occup Ther. 1982;36(11):709–15.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. Eighth edition. ed. New York,Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019.
17.
18.
Bäccman C, Bergkvist L, Kristensson P. Elderly and care personnel’s user experiences of a robotic shower. J Enabling Technol. 2020;14(1):1–13.CrossRef
19.
Klein B, Schlömer I. A robotic shower system: Acceptance and ethical issues. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2018;51(1):25–31.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Prescott TJ, Conran S, Mitchinson B, Cudd P. IntelliTable: inclusively-designed Furniture with robotic capabilities. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2017;242:565–72.
21.
Bilyea A, Seth N, Nesathurai S, Abdullah HA. Robotic assistants in personal care: a scoping review. Med Eng Phys. 2017;49:1–6.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Melkas H, Hennala L, Pekkarinen S, Kyrki V. Impacts of robot implementation on care personnel and clients in elderly-care institutions. Int J Med Inf. 2020;134.
23.
Miseikis J, PietroDuchamp M. Hansruedi. Lio-A Personal Robot Assistant for Human-Robot Interaction and Care Applications. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. 2020;5(4):5339-46.
24.
Cooper S, Di Fava A, Vivas C, Marchionni L, Ferro F, editors. ARI: The Social Assistive Robot and Companion. 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2020; 2020.
25.
Andtfolk M, Nyholm L, Eide H, Fagerstrom L. Humanoid robots in the care of older persons: a scoping review. Assist Technol. 2021:1–9.
26.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User Acceptance of Information Technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–78.CrossRef
27.
Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B. Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by older adults: the Almere Model. I J Social Rob. 2010;2:361–75.CrossRef
28.
Vandemeulebroucke T, de Casterlé BD, Gastmans C. How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Mental Health. 2018;22(2):149–67.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Vandemeulebroucke T, Dzi K, Gastmans C. Older adults’ experiences with and perceptions of the use of socially assistive robots in aged care: A systematic review of quantitative evidence. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;95:N.PAG-N.PAG.
30.
Papadopoulos I, Koulouglioti C, Lazzarino R, Ali S. Enablers and barriers to the implementation of socially assistive humanoid robots in health and social care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e033096.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Savela N, Turja T, Oksanen A. Social Acceptance of Robots in different Occupational fields: a systematic literature review. Int J Social Robot. 2017;10(4):493–502.CrossRef
32.
Wu YH, Cristancho-Lacroix V, Fassert C, Faucounau V, De Rotrou J, Rigaud AS. The attitudes and perceptions of older adults with mild cognitive impairment toward an Assistive Robot. J Appl Gerontol. 2016;35(1):3–17.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Lee HR, Tan H, Sabanovic S, editors. That robot is not for me: Addressing stereotypes of aging in assistive robot design. 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2016; 2016.
34.
Braun V & Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. Los Angeles, California: SAGE; 2022.CrossRef
35.
Krueger RA& Casey Ma. Focus groups: SAGE; 2014.
36.
Malterud K. Fokusgrupper som forskningsmetode for medisin og helsefag. Universitetsforlaget; 2012.
37.
Tausch AP, Menold N. Methodological Aspects of Focus Groups in Health Research: results of qualitative interviews with Focus Group moderators. Global Qualitative Nurs Res. 2016;3:2333393616630466.
38.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Forskrift om kvalitet. I pleie- og omsorgstjenestene for tjenesteyting etter lov av 19. November 1982 Nr. 66 om helsetjenesten i kommunene Og etter lov av 13. Desember 1991 nr. 81 om sosiale tjenester m.v., (FOR-2003-06-27-792).
40.
Lov om kommunale helse- og omsorgstjenester m.m. (helse- og omsorgstjenesteloven). (2022).
41.
42.
43.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
44.
Obayashi K, Kodate N, Masuyama S. Enhancing older people’s activity and participation with socially assistive robots: a multicentre quasi-experimental study using the ICF framework. Adv Robot. 2018;32(22):1207–16.CrossRef
45.
Bedaf S, Gelderblom GJ, Syrdal DS, Lehmann H, Michel H, Hewson D, et al. Which activities threaten independent living of elderly when becoming problematic: inspiration for meaningful service robot functionality. Disabil Rehabilitation: Assist Technol. 2014;9(6):445–52.
46.
Beer JM, Fisk AD, Rogers WA, editors. Commanding home robots: A comparison between older adults with and without mobility loss. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2015.
47.
Johansson-Pajala R-M, Thommes K, Hoppe JA, Tuisku O, Hennala L, Pekkarinen S, et al. Care Robot Orientation: what, who and how? Potential users’ perceptions. Int J Social Robot. 2020;12(5):1103–17.CrossRef
48.
Beer JM, Prakash A, Smarr CA, Chen TL, Hawkins K, Nguyen H, et al. Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: attitudinal changes following brief exposure. Gerontechnology. 2017;16(1):21–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Smarr CA, Mitzner TL, Beer JM, Prakash A, Chen TL, Kemp CC, et al. Domestic Robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int J Social Robot. 2014;6(2):229–47.CrossRef
50.
Kapusta AS, Grice PM, Clever HM, Chitalia Y, Park D, Kemp CC. A system for bedside assistance that integrates a robotic bed and a mobile manipulator. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(10).
51.
Grice PM, Killpack MD, Jain A, Vaish S, Hawke J, Kemp CC, editors. Whole-arm tactile sensing for beneficial and acceptable contact during robotic assistance. IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2013.
52.
Chen TL, Ciocarlie M, Cousins S, Grice PM, Hawkins K, Kaijen H, et al. Robots for humanity: using assistive robotics to empower people with disabilities. IEEE Rob Autom Magazine. 2013;20(1):30–9.CrossRef
53.
Bajones M, Fischinger D, Weiss A, Wolf D, Vincze M, De La Puente P et al. Hobbit: Providing fall detection and prevention for the elderly in the real world. Journal of Robotics. 2018;2018.
54.
Bevilacqua R, Felici E, Marcellini F, Glende S, Klemcke S, Conrad I et al. Robot-era project: Preliminary results on the system usability2015 2015. 553– 61 p.
55.
Bedaf S, Marti P, Amirabdollahian F, de Witte L. A multi-perspective evaluation of a service robot for seniors: the voice of different stakeholders. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. 2018;13(6):592-9.
56.
Ding M, Ikeura R, Mukai T, Nagashima H, Hirano S, Matsuo K, et al. editors. Comfort estimation during lift-up using nursing-care robot — RIBA. 2012 First International Conference on Innovative Engineering Systems; 2012 7–9 Dec. 2012.
57.
58.
Park D, Hoshi Y, Mahajan HP, Kim HK, Erickson Z, Rogers WA et al. Active robot-assisted feeding with a general-purpose mobile manipulator: design, evaluation, and lessons learned. Robot Auton Syst. 2020;124.
59.
Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N. The Uncanny Valley [From the field]. IEEE Rob Autom Magazine. 2012;19(2):98–100.CrossRef
60.
Olaronke I, Rhoda I, Janet O. A Framework for avoiding Uncanny Valley in Healthcare. Int J Biosci Healthc Technol Manage. 2017;7(1):1–10.
61.
Körtner T, Schmid A, Batko-Klein D, Gisinger C. Meeting requirements of older users? Robot prototype trials in a home-like environment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)2014. p. 660– 71.
62.
Bajones M, Fischinger D, Weiss A, Puente PDL, Wolf D, Vincze M, et al. Results of field trials with a Mobile Service Robot for older adults in 16 private households. J Hum-Robot Interact. 2019;9(2):10.
63.
Turner A, Foster M, Johnson SE. Occupational therapy and physical dysfunction: principles, skills and practice. Churchill Livingstone; 2002.
64.
Wilcock AA. Occupational Perspective of Health. USA: Slack Incorporated; 2006.
65.
Ch’ng AM, French D, McLean N. Coping with the challenges of recovery from stroke: long term perspectives of stroke support group members. J Health Psychol. 2008;13(8):1136–46.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Gorvin L, Brown D. The psychology of feeling like a burden: a review of the literature. Social Psychol Rev. 2012;14(1):28–41.CrossRef
67.
Pirhonen J, Tiilikainen E, Pekkarinen S, Lemivaara M, Melkas H. Can robots tackle late-life loneliness? Scanning of future opportunities and challenges in assisted living facilities. Futures. 2020;124.
68.
Schneider EC, Sarnak DO, Squires D, Arnav Shah MMD, Mirror. Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care. The Commonwealth Fund; 2017 July 2017.
69.
NordicSCIR. Nordic Spinal Cord Injury Registry Year Report. Report. kvalitetsregistre.no: Nordic Spinal Cord Injury Registry 2022 01.12.2023.
70.
Norwegian-Stroke. Registre. Year rapport 2021.Utarbeidet av nasjonalt sekretariat for Norsk hjerneslagregisterSeksjon for medisinske kvalitetsregistreSt. Olavs hospital HF15.juni 2022
Metadata
Title
Care-receivers with physical disabilities’ perceptions on having humanoid assistive robots as assistants: a qualitative study
Authors
Linda Sørensen
Dag Tomas Johannesen
Helinä Melkas
Hege Mari Johnsen
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10857-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Health Services Research 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Experiences of UK clinical scientists (Physical Sciences modality) with their regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council: results of a 2022 survey

Research

Infection prevention practice in home healthcare: a mixed-method study in two Swiss home healthcare organisations

Research

Building resilience: analysis of health care leaders’ perspectives on the Covid-19 response in Region Stockholm

Research

‘Counselling is not just providing information’: perceptions of caregivers and stakeholders on the design of nutrition and health counselling interventions for families with young children in rural Kenya

Research

The effect of commuting time on burnout: the mediation effect of musculoskeletal pain

Research

Validation of human immunodeficiency virus diagnosis codes among women enrollees of a U.S. health plan