Case Report: Implications of Doing Research on Socially Assistive Robots in Real Homes

Abstract

The current paper addresses the implications of doing research on socially assistive robots in real homes. In contrast to laboratory studies, studies of robots in their intended natural environments can provide insights into people's experiences of robots, and if and how a robot becomes embedded and used in people's everyday life. However, moving robots out of the lab and into real life environments poses several challenges. Laboratory methods mainly focus on cause-and-effect relations between independent and dependent variables, while researchers who are conducting studies in real homes have much less control. In home trials, researchers need to decide what kind of data is obtainable and available. In real homes, researchers face unique challenges that require unique and pragmatic approaches. Any single study conducted in a real home is likely to have methodological limitations. Therefore, several different studies using different robots and methods are needed before the results can be converged in order to reach conclusions that are convincingly supported. This paper is an effort to provide such a report on a specific empirical case and converging findings from other studies. The goal is to provide an account of the research challenges and opportunities encountered when introducing a robot into its intended practice: the homes of older people. The aim is to give enough details for other

Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review

“…The majority of the studies (71%) were conducted in European countries, the USA and New Zealand. Most of the studies investigated the implementation of robots primarily designed to support individuals, either living at home or at nursing homes, [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] or healthcare personnel. 26 34-38 Two robots had multiple functions to support both patients and healthcare personnel.…”

“…27 30 32 33 35 36 In contrast to non-acceptance, which was identified as a barrier, acceptance was reported to facilitate implementation. 24 28 31-35 39 Again, several factors had positive influences on acceptance: the design of the robot, 33 the characteristics of the robot itself (eg, a machine with human traits), 24 users' higher levels of computer experience, 29 31 training of healthcare staff users, understanding of the abilities and actions of the robot, 24 perceived improvement of quality of care, 34 Open access perceived usefulness of the robot, social influence from relatives, culturally specific attitudes towards robots, perceived increased independence 28 and intentions to use the robot when becoming dependent. 32 Positive feelings towards the robotic device, including curiousness, satisfaction, enthusiasm and confidence, further facilitated the implementation process.…”

Erfahrungen aus dem Einsatz von Pflegerobotern für Menschen im Alter

“…Dass jedem Roboter alle wichtigen Objekte gelehrt werden müssen, könnte vermieden werden, indem die Daten eines Objekts, beispielsweise einer Brille, gesammelt, gespeichert und einem anderen Roboter mitgegeben werden. Somit könnte der nächste Roboter, der eingesetzt wird, bereits mit einer größeren "Objektliste", wie Frennert et al (2017) es nennen, beginnen. Wichtige Aufgaben wie das Holen und Aufheben von Objekten sind an die Besonderheiten eines Objekts wie Größe und Form gebunden, die der Roboter entweder bereits in seiner Datenbank gespeichert hat oder neu dazulernen kann.…”

Care Workers’ Readiness for Robotization: Identifying Psychological and Socio-Demographic Determinants

“…Hence, the term care robot refers to a robot performing or assisting in tasks of care [7]. Care robots are typically categorized as monitoring, assistive, social and socially assistive robots-the latter of which refer to more autonomous interaction with people [8,9]. Care robots today are either very instrument-like or designed mostly for entertainment [1,2,10].…”