Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robots as Social and Physical Assistants in Elderly Care

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human-Centered Digitalization and Services

Part of the book series: Translational Systems Sciences ((TSS,volume 19))

Abstract

Care robots are robotic applications targeted for use in care and nursing environments, or to support independent living for the elderly and those with disabilities. Robots may provide relief to the challenge in many countries of tending to an increased elderly population’s needs for care services. This chapter provides an introductory review of care robots and discusses their acceptability within the field of elderly care. Our focus is on the end-users of robots, namely the elderly and care professionals, who are often neglected or misconceived within the field of technology development. We approach their perspective through three empirical studies: a citizen panel for older adults on their expectations and concerns for care robots, a case study of a social robot adopted within three elderly-care facilities, and a case study of a mobile telepresence robot piloted in two care facilities. In these studies, both elderly people and professionals showed positive perceptions towards care robots, at least from certain perspectives. They also presented requirements and framework conditions that should be taken into account when considering the use of robots in care. In particular, the study participants highlighted the priority of humans in care, although they accepted robots for carrying out secondary care tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Swedish government’s committee directive 2018:82 (2018). https://www.regeringen.se/4a38da/contentassets/038d2f97ae9d475b97d1fe318fca236a/valfardsteknik-i-aldreomsorgen-dir.-2018_82.pdf

  2. 2.

    The Finnish government’s resolution on intelligent robotics and automation (2016). http://valtioneuvosto.fi/paatokset/paatos?decisionId=0900908f804c7484

  3. 3.

    ‘New Robot Strategy’. Japan’s robot strategy – Vision, strategy, action plan (2015). http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2015/pdf/0123_01b.pdf

  4. 4.

    Strategic Research Agenda for Robotics in Europe 2014–2020 (2014). https://www.eu-robotics.net/cms/upload/topic_groups/SRA2020_SPARC.pdf

  5. 5.

    ISO 8373: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:8373:ed-2:v1:en. Sometimes purely non-physical computer-based assistants – such as so-called virtual agents or artificial intelligence software solutions that perform routine assistive tasks on computers – are termed robots as well, although nonphysical robots are beyond the scope of this chapter.

  6. 6.

    https://www.robotcaresystems.com/

  7. 7.

    https://world.honda.com/Walking-Assist/

  8. 8.

    http://www.indego.com/indego/en/home

  9. 9.

    https://evondos.com/

  10. 10.

    http://roseproject.aalto.fi/en/

  11. 11.

    The public statement (in Finnish): http://www.bioetiikka.fi/?page_id=1054

  12. 12.

    https://www.doublerobotics.com/

  13. 13.

    http://zorarobotics.be/index.php/en/zorabot-zora

  14. 14.

    https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/nao

  15. 15.

    Part of these results have been discussed in previous studies (Pekkarinen and Hennala 2016; Melkas et al. 2016; Tuisku et al. 2018; Melkas et al. submitted).

  16. 16.

    As an example, a digital online reminiscence service has been developed for elderly individuals or groups; see Niemelä et al. (2017).

  17. 17.

    https://thl.fi/en/web/information-management-in-social-welfare-and-health-care

References

  • Arras, K. O., & Cerqui, D. (2005). Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000-people survey (Technical Report No. 0605-001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedaf, S., Gelderblom, G. J., & de Witte, L. (2015). Overview and categorization of robots supporting independent living of elderly people: What activities do they support and how far have they developed. Assistive Technology, 27(2), 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., & MacDonald, B. (2009). Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: Review and future directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(4), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Patience, A., Knock, B., Kerse, N., Day, K., & MacDonald, B. A. (2012). Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 31(2), 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broekens, J., Heerink, M., & Rosendal, H. (2009). Assistive social robots in elderly care: A review. Gerontechnology, 8(2), 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, M. M. (2014). From ‘trust us’ to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512472160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compagna, D., & Kohlbacher, F. (2015). The limits of participatory technology development: The case of service robots in care facilities for older people. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coradeschi, S., Loutfi, A., Kristoffersson, A., von Rump, S., Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., & Gonzalez, J. (2011). Towards a methodology for longitudinal evaluation of social robotic telepresence for elderly. In Proceedings of the HRI 2011 workshop on social robotic telepresence (pp. 1–7). Lausanne, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, T. S., & Kamel Boulos, M. N. (2014). Robots in health and social care: A complementary technology to home care and telehealthcare? Robotics, 3(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics3010001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Graaf, M., & Ben Allouch, S. (2013). Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61, 1476–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flandorfer, P. (2012). Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: The importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. International Journal of Population Research, 2012, 1. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/829835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frennert, S., Eftring, H., & Östlund, B. (2017). Case report: Implications of doing research on socially assistive robots in real homes. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(3), 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frennert, S., & Östlund, E. (2014). Review: Seven matters of concern of social robotics and older people. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6(2), 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goeldner, M., Herstatt, C., & Tietze, F. (2015). The emergence of care robotics — A patent and publication analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herstatt, C., Kohlbacher, F., & Bauer, P. (2011). Silver product design – Product development for older people. Working paper no. 65. Hamburg: Institute for Technology and Innovation Management, Hamburg University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, M., & Hinds, P. (2018). Robots in the wild: A time for more robust theories of human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 7(1), 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3208975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim, H. A., Lokman, A. M., & Redzuan, F. (2016). Older adults perspective and emotional respond [sic] on robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on user science and engineering (i-USEr 2016) (pp. 95–99). Piscataway: IEEE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, R., Forlizzi, J., & Simmons, R. (2010). Affective social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 28(3), 322–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., & Loutfi, A. (2013). A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyrki, V., Coco, K., Hennala, L., Laitinen, A., Lehto, P., Melkas, H., Niemelä, M., … & Pekkarinen, S. (2016). Robotit ja hyvinvointipalvelujen tulevaisuus (ROSE-konsortio). Tilannekuvaraportti 2015. Strateginen tutkimus. Suomen Akatemia. http://www.aka.fi/globalassets/33stn/tilannekuvaraportit/tech-kyrki-robotiikkahyvinvointi-jaterveyspalveluissa_20160104.pdf.

  • McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melkas, H. (2013). Innovative assistive technology in Finnish public elderly-care services: A focus on productivity. Work, 46, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melkas, H., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S., & Kyrki, V. (2016). Human impact assessment of service robot implementation in Finnish elderly care. In 4th International Conference of Serviceology (ICServ2016), Tokyo, Japan, 6–8 September, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melkas, H., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S., & Kyrki, V. (submitted). Robot implementation in elderly-care institutions: Impacts on care personnel and clients. Manuscript in review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J., & Salice, A. (2017). The sense of commitment in human-robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9, 755–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0376-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukai, T., Hirano, S., Nakashima, H., Kato, Y., Sakaida, Y., Guo, S., & Hosoe, S. (2010). Development of a nursing-care assistant robot RIBA that can lift a human in its arms. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ 2010 international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2010), November, pp. 5996–6001. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2010.5651735

  • Neven, L. (2010). ‘But obviously not for me’: Robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(2), 335–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä, M., Kulju, M., Ylikauppila, M., & Määttä, H. (2017a). Do active seniors find digital reminiscence meaningful? A user study. In ICServ 2017 special session: Meaningful technologies for seniors. Tokyo, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä, M., van Aerschot, L., Tammela, A., & Aaltonen, I. (2017b). A telepresence robot in residential care: Family increasingly present, personnel worried about privacy. In A. Kheddar (Ed.), Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics) (Vol. 10652, pp. 85–94). Basel: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä, M., van Aerschot, L., Tammela, A., Aaltonen, I., & Lammi, H. (2019). Towards ethical guidelines of using telepresence robots in residential care. International Journal of Social Robotics (Online First). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00529-8.

  • Ott, I. (2012). Service robotics: An emergent technology field at the interface between industry and services. Poiesis & Praxis, 9(3–4), 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parviainen, J., & Pirhonen, J. (2017). Vulnerable bodies in human-robot interaction: Embodiment as ethical issue in robot care for the elderly. Transformations, 29, special issue: ‘Social robots: Human-machine configurations’ (pp. 104–115).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekkarinen, S., & Hennala, L. (2016). Robotiikan haasteista. Finnish Journal of eHealth and eWelfare, 8(2–3), 137–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfadenhauer, M. (2013). On the sociality of social robots: A sociology-of-knowledge perspective. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 10(1), 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rantanen, P., Parkkari, T., Leikola, S., Airaksinen, M., & Lyles, A. (2017). An in-home advanced robotic system to manage elderly home-care patients’ medications: A pilot safety and usability study. Clinical Therapeutics, 39(5), 1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.03.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, C., Mondada, F., & Siegwart, R. (2008). What do people expect from robots? In 2008 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) (pp. 3816–3821).

    Google Scholar 

  • ROSE consortium. (2017). Robotics in care services: A Finnish roadmap. http://roseproject.aalto.fi/images/publications/Roadmap-final02062017.pdf.

  • Røtnes, R., & Dybvik Staalesen, P. (Eds.). (2009). New methods for user driven innovation in the health care sector. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Centre. http://nordicinnovation.org/Global/_Publications/Reports/2010/New%20methods%20for%20user%20driven%20innovation%20in%20the%20health%20care%20sector.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šabanović, S. (2010). Robots in society, society in robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2, 439–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savela, N., Turja, T., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0452-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxén, S. (2017). Robotteja hoivaan? Raportti vanhojen ihmisten hoivarobotiikan hyväksyttävyyttä pohtineesta kansalaisraadista. Public report (in Finnish). http://www.bioetiikka.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Rose-raportti.pdf.

  • Shibata, T., Wada, K., Ikeda, Y., & Sabanovic, S. (2009). Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Advanced Robotics, 23, 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smarr, C. A., Prakash, A., Beer, J. M., Mitzner, T. L., Kemp, C. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2012). Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (56, 1, 153–157). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R., & Sparrow, L. (2006). In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds and Machines, 16(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-006-9030-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Special Eurobarometer 427. (2015). Autonomous systems. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_427_en.pdf

  • Taipale, S., Vincent, J., Sapio, B., Lugano, V., & Fortunati, L. (2015). Introduction: Situating the human in social robots. In J. Vincent, S. Taipale, B. Sapio, G. Lugano, & L. Fortunati (Eds.), Social robots from a human perspective. Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuisku, O., Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., & Melkas, H. (2018). ‘Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart’ – The publicity around a robotic innovation in elderly care. Information Technology and People, 32, 47. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-06-2018-0277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turja, T., Van Aerschot, L., Särkikoski, T., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Finnish healthcare professionals’ attitudes toward robots: Reflections on a population sample. Nursing Open, 5(3), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wada, K., & Shibata, T. (2007). Living with seal robots: Its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(5), 972–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wada, K., Shibata, T., & Kawaguchi, Y. (2009). Long-term robot therapy in a health service facility for the aged: A case study for 5 years. In 2009 IEEE international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR 2009) (pp. 930–933).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., & Tanie, K. (2004). Effects of robot-assisted activity for elderly people and nurses at a day service center. Proceedings of the IEEE, 92(11), 1780–1788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland (project name: Robots and the Future of Welfare Services [ROSE], decision numbers 292980 and 314180). The second author also acknowledges support from the LUT Research Platform on Smart Services for Digitalisation (DIGI-USER).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Tampere, Finland

    Marketta Niemelä

  2. Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT, Lahti, Finland

    Helinä Melkas

Authors
  1. Marketta Niemelä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helinä Melkas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marketta Niemelä .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Marja Toivonen

  2. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

    Eveliina Saari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Niemelä, M., Melkas, H. (2019). Robots as Social and Physical Assistants in Elderly Care. In: Toivonen, M., Saari, E. (eds) Human-Centered Digitalization and Services. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 19. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7725-9_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation