Inclusion of service robots in the daily lives of frail older users: A step-by-step definition procedure on users' requirements
Introduction
Robotics is getting greater attention nowadays as a promising field to support older adults with a range of different activities and to address the challenges associated with ageing, enabling them to live independently in their homes (Mitzner, Chen, Kemp, & Rogers, 2014; Smarr et al., 2014). Robots fulfil a growing number of roles in today’s society, ranging from factory automation and service applications to medical care and entertainment (Feil-Seifer & Mataric, 2009). The development of service robots has been divided into two sectors: (a) non-manufacturing productive sectors such as agriculture, the boating industry, the mining industry, or medicine; and (b) the personal service sector, including personal assistance, cleaning, monitoring, education, entertainment, etc. (Aracil, Balaguer, & Armada, 2008).
Prototype robots have been developed to support independent living, in order to help older adults who try to live in their homes for as long as possible, even when the user is functionally disabled. Several personal service robots have been developed, including Aibo (Fujita, 2001), Care-O-bot (Graf, Han, & Schraft 2004; Graf, Reiser, Hägele, Mauz, & Klein, 2012), Pearl (Pollack et al., 2002), iCat (van Breemen, Yan, & Meerbeek, 2005), Robocare (Cesta et al., 2007), Robot-Era robots (Cavallo et al., 2014), or Hobbit (Fischinger et al., 2016). In addition, the robots Huggable (Stiehl et al., 2006), Paro (Wada, Shibata, Musha, & Kimure, 2005), Companionable (Badii et al., 2009), Giraff (Coradeschi et al., 2011) and GiraffPlus (Coradeschi et al., 2014), amongst others, have been developed to provide emotional support and other companion functions. Under this context, some studies have considered the optimal companionship that robots could provide (Taggart, Turkle, & Kidd, 2005; Wada, Shibata, Saito, & Tanie, 2003). However, the implications of the inclusion of robots in the daily lives of frail older adults (in terms of these frail older adults’ needs and requirements, and the relationship between ethical implications and technical possibilities of such inclusion) have not been as widely studied until recently (Sharkey, 2013, Smarr et al., 2014; Sorell & Draper, 2014).
It is well known that people aged 65 and over represent the fastest growing age-group worldwide. In the United States and in Europe, high proportions of adults over 65 years old (58.7% and 66%, respectively) have chronic illness or health problems that prevent them from living autonomously (European Commission, 2014, European Commission, 2015). Whilst there is no causal relation between ageing and disability, age can be a key risk variable related with several health problems and frailty (Mitnitski et al., 2015). Frailty is characterized by the concurrent loss of several capabilities. Older adults commonly become frail in a general sense that includes unstable health conditions, reduced reserve capacity for dealing with stressors and increased socio-economic difficulties (Avila-Funes et al., 2009, Jung et al., 2010; Rockwood, Fox, Stolee, Robertson, & Beattie, 1994; Schuurmans, Steverink, Lindenberg, Frieswijk, & Slaets, 2004). Furthermore, older adults usually experience deficits sequentially or concurrently, thus becoming frailer in a general sense (Clegg, Young, Lliffe, Rikkert, & Rockwood, 2013; Schuurmans et al., 2004).
In order to fill the gap between inclusion of robots in the daily lives of frail older adults, and to provide support to frail older populations, a project entitled “Multi-Role Shadow Robotic System for Independent Living (SRS)” focused on developing and prototyping of remotely-controlled, semi-autonomous robotic solutions in domestic environments. The system developed comprises an automatic task planner that produces proactive robotic behaviours based on updated semantic knowledge and executive control for coordinating activities at the level of sensing and action (Qiu et al., 2012). The robot was a wheeled mobile platform equipped with a robotic arm, capable to be operated through remote control to perform several tasks (such as grabbing objects, carrying objects and using adapted electric devices) for supporting older adults in a frail condition to cope with problematic homeostasis and vulnerability to stressors, and ultimately to improve their health condition. The systems can help with daily living activities such as reaching, fetching and carrying objects that are heavy or out of reach (Pigini, Facal, Garcia, Burmester, & Andrich, 2012).
Development of the SRS project was user-centric and iterative. The aim of the present study is to define in detail the step-by-step procedure used to identify and prioritize a set of user requirements. Taking into account the large amount of documentation generated in the project covering the assessments procedure (Mast et al., 2012; Pigini, Facal, Blasi, & Andrich, 2012), our main research question was: what type and which are the frail older user requirements’ to accept the integration of robotic solutions in their daily lives and homes? The current study presents the whole procedure for gathering the requirements throughout the SRS project instead of going deep into exhaustive descriptions of the actions and materials (for this purpose, several supplementary documents have been included as Supplementary materials).
Section snippets
Participants
215 participants were recruited through different SRS procedural phases for identifying user requirements (Table 1). All the participants took part in the study voluntarily and signed an informed consent in which their participation, rights and use of the data was described.
Focus groups were attended by 67 participants. A total of 22 frail older adults (77% female), with a mean age of 80 years-old (range: 65–90 y.o.) participated in 4 focus groups in all the three countries. Seventeen relatives
Results
From the literature analysis, we identified a list of 19 user requirements related to basic (BDL) and instrumental (IADL) activities of daily living. These primary requirements were checked then through focus groups, interviews and ethnographic approach. Finally 74 requirements with different levels of specification, depending on the nature of the approach (qualitative or quantitative), were found and elaborated. Thus, 12 requirements were identified in the focus group discussions (Table 3). On
Discussion
In this paper, we present the procedure used to identify, collate and prioritize the functional requirements of frail older adults in relation to receiving help and support from a semi-autonomous robotic assistive system. User Centred Design (UCD) method and prioritization techniques were used to generate user requirements, realistic usage scenarios and to maximize alignment with users’ needs, perceptions, feelings and rights. The approach was based on the premise of involving the user through
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The SRS – Multi-Role Shadow Robotic System for Independent Living project was funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) – Challenges 7: Independent living, Inclusion and Governance. We thank all partners involved in the project. In Spain, we thank the staff of Matia Foundation who agreed to participate in this study, as well as Francesca Irene Cavallaro, Igone Etxeberria, and Xabier Ansorena for their involvement in the study.
References (40)
- et al.
Robots de servicio
Revista Iberoamericana De Automática E Informática Industrial RIAI
(2008) - et al.
Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned
Robotics and Autonomous Systems
(2016) - et al.
Cognitive impairment improves the predictive validity of the phenotype of frailty for adverse health outcomes: The three-city study
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
(2009) - et al.
CompanionAble: Graceful integration of mobile robot companion with a smart home environment
Gerontechnology
(2009) - et al.
Benefits and privacy concerns of a home equipped with a visual sensing system: A perspective from older adults
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
(2006) - et al.
Development of a socially believable multi-robot solution from town to home
Cognitive Computer
(2014) - et al.
Psychological implications of domestic assistive technology for the elderly
PsychNology Journal
(2007) - et al.
Frailty in elderly people
Lancet
(2013) - et al.
Towards a methodology for longitudinal evaluation of social robotic telepresence for elderly
Human–Robot interaction workshop on social robotic telepresence
(2011) - et al.
GiraffPlus: A system for monitoring activities and physiological parameters and promoting social interaction for elderly. Human-Computer Systems Interaction
Backgrounds and Applications
(2014)
A practical guide to usability testing
Key figures in europe. Luxembourg
People having a long-standing illness or health problem, by sex, age and educational level
Human-robot interaction
AIBO: Toward the era of digital creatures
The International Journal of Robotics Research
Addressing accessibility challenges of people with motor disabilities by means of AsTeRICS: A step by step definition of technical requirements
Care-O-bot II—Development of a next generation robotic home assistant
Autonomous Robots
Robotic home assistant Care-O-bot® 3 – product vision and innovation platform
Productive activities and development of frailty in older adults
The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
RESPECT: User centred requirements handbook
Cited by (40)
Seeking at-home long-term autonomy of assistive mobile robots through the integration with an IoT-based monitoring system
2023, Robotics and Autonomous SystemsCitation Excerpt :In its turn, long-term autonomy (LTA) of assistive mobile robots is a challenging and still unexplored research topic, due to the unpredictability of potential failure causes of the robot and of the potential situations in which it may find itself [22]. The functionality required by such robots is often investigated with structured interviews, as in [23,6,24], but a few works have actually deployed such robots for real-world evaluation. Recent works like [25] have done a remarkable effort in LTA, by deploying an autonomous social robot for several weeks in settings like an assisted living facility.
User feedback and remote supervision for assisted living with mobile robots: A field study in long-term autonomy
2022, Robotics and Autonomous SystemsCitation Excerpt :The term SAR refers to a class of robots defined as being at the intersection of socially interactive robots, focusing on engaging and stimulating the users through social and non-physical interactions, and assistive robots, whose aim is to overcome the physical limitations of the patients by helping them in their daily activities (such as getting out of bed, brushing teeth, walking, etc.) [3]. SAR-based systems represent a promising technology aiming to provide assistance to older adults through social interactions, and their functionalities are often investigated with structured interviews and controlled pilot studies, as in [2,12,13]. The work of [14] presents an overview of several SAR platforms developed in the last twenty years, showing their evolution from early prototypes, tested in laboratories and controlled environments, to technologically ready systems to be deployed in heterogeneous contexts with their end-users.
Human costs of aged care productivity: Innovation versus staffing and skills mix
2021, CollegianCitation Excerpt :Technological innovation has a clear place in the future of aged care, but hopefully not one that limits the importance of and opportunities for human contact and interaction. Robotics are emerging as some of the most advanced innovations in health and aged care (Bradwell et al., 2020; García-Soler et al., 2018). Debate is rich in this space (Vandemeulebroucke et al., 2018), but some authors have commented that despite the promising capabilities of robots to take on some service roles in the aged-care, economic pressures would guarantee that reduction in the amount and quality of human contact would occur with great detriment to experiences and wellbeing (Rubeis, 2020; Sparrow and Sparrow, 2006).
Robotics to support aging in place
2020, Living with Robots: Emerging Issues on the Psychological and Social Implications of RoboticsGerontechnology and artificial intelligence: Better care for older people
2020, Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics