A pilot study exploring staff acceptability of a socially assistive robot in a residential care facility that accommodates people under 65 years old

Abstract

Socially assistive robots have successfully been trialed in residential care facilities (RCFs) for older adults. These robots may have potential for younger adults (i.e. under 65 years old) who also live in RCFs. However, it is important to investigate staff acceptability and ease-of-use of these robots. This pilot study used the Technology Acceptance Model to investigate how staff working in a specialized RCF for younger adults accept Betty, a socially assistive robot who was introduced in the facility for 12 weeks. Twenty-four staff completed pre-questionnaires, reporting that they thought Betty would have the ability to engage and entertain the residents they cared for. While there were only eight staff who completed the post-questionnaires, there were significant improvements compared to the pre-questionnaire results in areas such as residents enjoying the contact and activities. Impacting on ease-of use were technical difficulties. Although this study had limitations and could be improved by a better response rate and investigating the residents' acceptability of Betty, this study is one of the first to report that this novel technology may have much potential for engaging adults in RCFs.

Enablers and barriers to the implementation of socially assistive humanoid robots in health and social care: a systematic review

“…A total of 12 studies were included in our analyses: 6 mixed-method, non-randomised user experience trials30–35; 2 pre-post experimental surveys36 37; 1 mixed-method, longitudinal experience trial38; 2 post-experimental surveys39 40; and 1 ethnographic study41 (see Figure 1).…”

“…Most studies had no comparator and no baseline 30–35 38 40 41. Additional methodological limitations affecting the non-randomised, quasi-experimental design of the studies were: very small samples’ sizes, with only one study involving more than 100 participants38; and self-reported measures,30 34–37 39 40 not always in combination with observation and/or data retrieved from the robot 31–33 38. Seven studies33–35 37 38 40 41 used validated instruments informed by existing theoretical models44–47; two studies reported the drop-out rate but did not mention the handling of missing data 32 37.…”

“…Among these 11 studies, 1 also included professional and informal caregivers,30 and 2 considered residential care facility (RCF) staff 32 41. One study only involved staff in a RCF for younger adults affected by neuropsychiatric conditions 37. Three studies included older adults affected by dementia and other conditions of ageing-related, cognitive impairment 31 32 38.…”

“…The largest post-experimental group consisted in Australian participants (n=123). All the earlier figures includes neither data of subjects who dropped out in pre-post studies37 39 nor all data collected via observation of HRIs or interviews, as sometimes this information was irretrievable or not reported 32…”

A Survey of Behavioral Models for Social Robots

“…The Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) field of study tries to shape the interactions between one or more humans and one or more robots. Over the latest several years, there is an increasing interest in HRI due to the increasing usage of robots not only in industrial fields, but also in other areas as schools [2], homes [3], hospitals [4], and rehabilitation centers [5].…”