Realizing the Potential of Robotics for Aged Care Through Co-Creation

Abstract

Socially assistive robots have the potential to improve aged care by providing assistance through social interaction. While some evidence suggests a positive impact of social robots on measures of well-being, the adoption of robotic technology remains slow. One approach to improve technology adoption is involving all stakeholders in the process of technology development using co-creation methods. To capture relevant stake holders' priorities and perceptions on the ethics of robotic companions, we conducted an interactive co-creation workshop at the 2019 Geriatric Services Conference in Vancouver, BC. The participants were presented with different portrayals of robotic companions in popular culture and answered questions about perceptions, expectations, and ethical concerns about the implementation of robotic technology. Our results reveal that the most pressing ethical concerns with robotic technology, such as issues related to privacy, are critical potential barriers to technology adoption. We also found that most participants agree on the types of tasks that robots should help with, such as domestic chores, communication, and medication reminders. Activities that robots should not help with, according to the stakeholders, included bathing, toileting, and managing finances. The perspectives that were captured contribute to a preliminary outline of the areas of importance for geriatric care stake holders in the process of ethical technology design and development.

Companion robots for older adults: Rodgers’ evolutionary concept analysis approach

“…They also enjoyed a companion robot with entertainment functions, including dancing, singing, storytelling, playing board games, or news reporting [ 15 , 25 ]. According to studies, older adults were more receptive to the use of robots for simple and non-intimate physical assistance, such as reminders, domestic chores, and communication, while they were less receptive to the use of robots in activities, such as taking a bath, toileting, and managing finances [ 45 , 48 , 49 ]. Some studies on assisted robots reported that older adults value service-related functions more than companion-related functions [ 20 ], and robot functionality is more important than appearance [ 42 ].…”

“…Studies reported several concerns regarding robots in general. For instance, the complexity of using the robots and technical obstacles impede implementation in the real world [ 49 , 69 ]. Older adults might fear the inability to handle the malfunctioning and rusting of the robot [ 20 ].…”

“…In some cases, people soon lose interest in the non-living robot and its limited behavioral repertoire [ 53 ]. The benefits of robots for society and empowerment of older people must be contrasted against possible ethical concerns in the field around issues, such as deceit, infantilization, increased feeling of objectification or anxiety, loss of control and dignity, loss of privacy and personal freedom as well as reduced human contact and accountability [ 3 , 14 , 45 , 49 , 59 , 60 , 69 , 75 ]. Concerns included the loss of jobs and personal care, while perceived benefits included allowing staff to spend quality time with residents and helping residents with self-care [ 3 , 31 , 41 , 42 ].…”

Ethics in human–AI teaming: principles and perspectives

“…If consumer electronics and applications satisfy the minimum competence requirement, then there is already a range of carebots available [69,70]. The simplest current carebots are not too expensive and offer a level of assistance paired with emotive and interactive designs.…”

Towards a Holistic Approach to Studying Human–Robot Interaction in Later Life

“…In addition, a number of recent studies have shown that older adults were less receptive to intimate robotic physical assistance such as bathing, while they were more open to using robots for simpler tasks such as reminder management and communication. (e.g., Robillard & Kabacińska, 2020). Users also compared robots with pets (Bates, 2019;Lazar et al, 2016), which were more valued thanks to the reciprocity inherent in caring for them and the relationships they form, as well as with other technologies such as those of tablet computers (Mann et al, 2015) and smart home technologies (Torta et al, 2014), which were typically perceived as inferior and less enjoyable than robots.…”