Acceptance of Healthcare Robots for the Older Population: Review and Future Directions

  • E. BroadbentEmail author
  • R. Stafford
  • B. MacDonald


The rapidly ageing population is placing increasing strain on healthcare services. Robots have been proposed as a way to assist people to stay healthy and safe in their own homes. However, despite the need for such assistive devices and the success of some healthcare robots, other robots have had a poor response. This article reviews the literature about human responses to healthcare robots and summarises the variables that have been found to influence responses. It may be possible to increase acceptance of healthcare robots by properly assessing the needs of the human user and then matching the robot’s role, appearance and behaviour to these needs. Because robots have limitations in their abilities, another way to increase acceptance may be to modify the expectations of users to better match robots’ abilities. More research needs to investigate potential users’ needs and expectations in specific situations and whether interventions to increase the match between robot and human can increase acceptance.


Older persons Healthcare Robots Acceptance 


  1. 1.
    United Nations (2006) World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. United Nations, New York Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Super N (2002) Who will be there to care? The growing gap between caregiver supply and demand. In: National Health Policy Forum, George Washington University, Washington DC Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murray MK (2002) The nursing shortage: past, present, and future. J Nurs Admin 32:79–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ichbiah D (2005) Robots: from science fiction to technological revolution. Harry N Abrams, New York Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Howe RD, Matsuoka Y (1999) Robotics for surgery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 1:211–240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krebs HI, Palazzolo JJ, Dipietro L, Ferraro M, Krol J, Rannekleiv K, Volpe BT, Hogan N (2003) Rehabilitation robotics: performance-based progressive robot-assisted therapy. Auton Robots 15:7–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tejima N (2001) Rehabilitation robotics: a review. Adv Robot 14:551–564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matarić MJ, Eriksson J, Feil-Seifer DJ, Winstein CJ (2007) Socially assistive robotics for post-stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroengineering Rehabil 4:5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kidd CD, Breazeal C (2006) Sociable robot systems for weight maintenance. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE consumer communications and networking conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp 253–257 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hou C, Jia S, Takase K (2003) Real-time multimedia applications in a web-based robotic telecare system. J Intell Robot Syst 38:135–153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tinker A, Lansley P (2005) Introducing assistive technology into the existing homes of older people: feasibility, acceptability, costs and outcomes. J Telemed Telecare 11:1–3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scopelliti M, Giuliani MV, Fornara F (2005) Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Univers Access Inf Soc 4:146–155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Foulk E (2007) Lonely robots ignored by elderly ludites. In: The New Zealand Herald available from, Visited Sept 21st, 2007
  14. 14.
    Sparrow R, Sparrow L (2006) In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Mind Mach 16:141–161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lachs MS, Pillemer K (1995) Abuse and neglect of elderly persons. New Engl J Med 7:437–443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Homer AC, Gilleard C (1991) Abuse of elderly people by their carers. Br Med J 9:1359–1362 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2006) The influence of a robot’s social abilities on acceptance by elderly users. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication RO-MAN 06, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK, pp 521–526 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kulviwat S, Bruner GC, Kumar A, Nasco SA, Clark T (2007) Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychol Market 24:1059–1084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pollack ME, Engberg S, Matthews JT, Thrun S, Brown L, Colbry D, Orosz C, Peintner B, Ramakrishnan S, Dunbar-Jacob J, McCarthy C, Montemerlo M, Pineau J, Roy N (2002) Pearl: a mobile robotic assistant for the elderly. AAAI Workshop on Automation as Eldercare, Edmonton, Canada Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pineau J, Montemerlo M, Pollack M, Roy N, Thrun S (2003) Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: challenges and results. Robot Auton Syst 42:271–281 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dario P, Guglielmelli E, Laschi C, Teti G (1999) MOVAID: a personal robot in everyday life of disabled and elderly people. Technol Disabil 10:77–93 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graf B, Hans M, Schraft RD (2004) Care-O-bot II—development of a next generation robotic home assistant. Auton Robots 16:193–205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noury N (2005) AILISA: Experimental platforms to evaluate remote care and assistive technologies in gerontology. In: Proceedings of 7th international workshop on enterprise networking and computing in healthcare industry HEALTHCOM 2005, Busan, Korea, pp 67–72 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mukai T, Onishi M, Odashima T, Hirano S, Zhiwei L (2008) Development of the tactile sensor system of a human-interactive robot “RI-MAN”. IEEE Trans Robot 24:505–512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stiehl WD, Lieberman J, Breazeal C, Basel L, Cooper R, Knight H, Lalla L, Maymin A, Purchase S (2006) The huggable: a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE consumer communications and networking conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp 1290–1291 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tamura T, Yonemitsu S, Itoh A, Oikawa D, Kawakami A, Higashi Y, Fujimooto T, Nakajima K (2004) Is an entertainment robot useful in the care of elderly people with severe dementia? J Gerontol Biol Med Sci 59:M83–M85 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Banks MR, Willoughby LM, Banks WA (2008) Animal-assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: use of robotic versus living dogs. J Am Med Dir Assoc 9:173–177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wada K, Shibata T, Musha T, Kimura S (2005) Effects of robot therapy for demented patients evaluated by EEG. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Edmonton, Canada, pp 1552–1557 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Onishi K (2006) Wakamaru, the robot for your home. J Jpn Soc Mech Eng 109:448–449 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F (2004) Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Hum Comput Interact 19:25–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krikke J (2003) Japan’s robot developers go Linux. LinuxInsider. Retrieved from, Visited March 12th, 2008
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Arras KO, Cerqui D (2005) Do we want to share our lives and bodies with robots? A 2000 people survey. Technical Report Nr. 0605-001, Autonomous Systems Lab, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) 2005 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Giulini MV, Scopelliti M, Fornara F (2005) Elderly people at home: Technological help in everyday activities. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international workshop on robots and human interactive communication, Nashville, TN, pp 365–370 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Czaja SJ, Sharit J (1998) Age differences in attitudes towards computers. J Gerontol 53:329–340 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Libin AV, Libin EV (2004) Person-robot interactions from the robopsychologists point of view: the robotic psychology and robotherapy approach. Proc IEEE 92:1789–1803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pain H, Gale CR, Watson C, Cox V, Cooper C, Sayer A (2007) Readiness of elders to use assistive devices to maintain their independence in the home. Age Ageing 36:465–467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brebner JA, Brebner EM, Ruddick-Bracken H (2005) Experienced-based guidelines for the implementation of telemedicine services. J Telemed Telecare 11:3–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kobb R, Hilsen P, Ryan P (2003) Assessing technology needs for the elderly: finding the perfect match for home. Home Healthc Nurse 21:666–673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Giuliani MV, Pecora F, Scopelliti M, Tiberio L (2007) Psychological implications of domestic assistive technology for the elderly. Psycho Oncol 5:229–252 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Forlizzi J (2007) How robotic products become social products: an ethnographic study of cleaning in the home. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Virginia, USA, pp 129–136 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mutlu B, Osman S, Forlizzi F, Hodgins J, Kiesler S (2006) Task structure and user attributes as elements of human-robot interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication RO-MAN06, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK, pp 74–79 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Taggart W, Turkle S, Kidd CD (2005) An interactive robot in a nursing home: preliminary remarks. In: Proceedings of toward social mechanisms of android science, a cognitive science society workshop, Stresa, Italy, 2005, pp 56–61 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shiabata T, Wada K, Ikeda Y, Sabanovic S (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23:443–458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Siino RM, Hinds PJ (2005) Robots, gender & sensemaking: sex segregation’s impact on workers making sense of a mobile autonomous robot. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Barcelona, pp 2773–2778 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nomura T, Kanda T, Suzuki T, Kato K (2008) Prediction of human behavior in human–robot interaction using psychological scales for anxiety and negative attitudes toward robots. IEEE Trans Robot 24:442–451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dijkers MI, deBear PC, Erlandson RF, Kristy K, Geer DM, Nichols A (1991) Patient and staff acceptance of robotic technology in occupational therapy: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev 28:33–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Forlizzi J (2005) Robotic products to assist the aging population. Inter Actions 12:16–18 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Koay KL, Syrdal DS, Walters ML, Dautenhahn K (2007) Living with robots: investigating the habituation effect in participants’ preferences during a longitudinal human-robot interaction study. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication RO-MAN, Jeju Island, Korea, 2007, pp 564–569 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wada K, Shibata T (2007) Robot therapy in a care house—change of relationship among the residents and seal robot during a 2-month long study. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication RO-MAN, Jeju Island, Korea, 2007, pp 107–112 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Derose JJ, Balaram SK, Ro C, Swistel DG, Singh V, Wilentz JR, Todd GJ, Ashton RC (2005) Mid-term results and patient perceptions of robotically-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 4:406–411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2006) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21:217–230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nomura T, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Han J, Shin N, Burke J, Kato K (2008). What people assume about humanoid and animal-type robots: cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea, and the USA. Int J Humanoid Robot 5:25–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wasen K (2005) Person-friendly robot interaction: social, psychological and technical impacts in health care work. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international workshop on robots and human interactive communication, Nashville, TN, pp 643–648 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Novek J, Bettes S, Burke K, Johnston P (2000) Nurses’ perceptions of the reliability of an automated medication dispensing system. J Nurs Care Qual 14:1–13 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Saito T, Shibata T, Wada K, Tanie K (2003) Relationship between interaction with the mental commit robot and change of stress reaction of the elderly. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence and automation, Kobe, Japan, pp 119–124 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Heerink M, Kröse B, Wielinga B, Evers V (2008) Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on human robot interaction, Amsterdam, 2008, pp 113–120 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Khan Z (1998). Attitudes towards intelligent service robots. Technical Report No TRITA-NA-P9821, NADA, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hirsch T, Forlizzi J, Hyder E, Goetz J, Stroback J, Kurtz C (2000) The Elder project: social and emotional factors in design of eldercare technologies. In: Proceedings on the 2000 conference on universal usability, Arlington, VA, pp 72–79 Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Powers A, Kiesler S (2006) The advisor robot: Tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human-robot interaction, Salt Lake City, pp 218–225 Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Breazeal C (2000b) Sociable machines: expressive social exchange between humans and robots. Doctor of Science Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000. Retrieved from Visited Dec 8th 2008
  62. 62.
    Mori M (1970) Bukimi no tani (the uncanny valley). Energy 7:33–35 Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Oestreicher L (2007) Cognitive, social, sociable or just socially acceptable robots? In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication RO-MAN, Jeju Island, Korea, 2007, pp 558–563 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Robins B, Otero N, Ferrari E, Dautenhahn K (2007) Eliciting requirements for a robotic toy for children with autism—results from user panels. In: Proceedings from the 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication RO-MAN, Jeju Island, Korea, 2007, pp 101–106 Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Robins B, Dautenhahn K, te Boekhorst R, Billard A (2004) Robots as assistive technology—does appearance matter? In: Proceedings from the 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication ro-man, Okayama Japan, 2004, pp 277–282 Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hinds PJ, Roberts TL, Jones H (2004) Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Hum Comput Interact 19:151–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Breazeal C (2000a) Regulation and entrainment in human-robot interaction. Lect Notes Control Inform Sci, Exp Robot VII 271:61–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ekman P (1999) Facial expressions. In Dalgleish T, Power T (eds) (1999) The handbook of cognition and emotion, pp 301–320. Wiley, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Han J, Lee J, Cho Y (2005) Evolutionary role model and basic emotions of service robots originated from computers. In: Proceedings from the 2005 IEEE international workshop on robots and human interactive communication, Nashville, TN, pp 30–35 Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Blow MP, Dautenhahn K, Appleby A, Nehaniv CL, Lee DC (2006) Perception of robot smiles and dimensions for human-robot interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 2006 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK, pp 469–474 Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Powers A, Kramer ADI, Lim S, Kuo J, Lee S, Kiesler S (2005) Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international workshop on robots and human interactive communication, Nashville, TN, pp 158–163 Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tapus A, Matraric M (2006) User personality matching with hands-off robot for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on experimental robotics (ISER), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    de Ruyter B, Saini P, Markopoulos P, van Breemen A (2005) Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interact Comput 17:522–541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bickmore TW, Picard RW (2004) Towards caring machines. In: CHI’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 1489–1492 Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Goetz J, Kiesler S (2002) Cooperation with a robotic assistant. In: Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp 578–579 Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Tapus A, Tapus C, Mataric MJ (2007). Hands-off therapist robot behavior adaptation to user personality for post-stroke rehabilitation therapy. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 1547–1553 Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Qing-hua L, Meng MQH, Tao M (2005). Robotic pet based interactive home healthcare system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics, pp 771–776 Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Fleming KC, Evans JM, Weber DC, Chutka DS (1995) Practical functional assessment of elderly persons: a primary-care approach. Mayo Clin Proc 70:890–910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Fiel-Seifer D, Skinner K, Mataric MJ (2007) Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interact Stud 8:423–429 Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Gandsas A, Parekh M, Bleech M (2007) Robotic telepresence: profit analysis in reducing length of stay after laproscopic gastric bypass. J Am Coll Surg 205:72–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ellison LM, Pinto PA, Kim F, Ong AM, Patriciu A, Stoianovici D, Rubin H, Jarrett T, Kavoussi LR (2004) Telerounding and patient satisfaction after surgery. J Am Coll Surg 199:523–530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Libin AV, Libin EV (2003) New diagnostic tool for robotic psychology and robotherapy studies. Cyberpsychol Behav 6:369–374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bartneck C, Kulic D, Croft E, Zoghbi S (2009) Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. Int J Soc Robot 1:71–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Horvath A, Greenberg L (1989) Development and validation of the working alliance inventory. J Couns Psychol 36:223–233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ickes W, Bissonnette V, Garcia S, Stinson LL (1990) Implementing and using the dyadic interaction system. In: Hendrick C, Clark MS (eds) Research methods in personality and social psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 16–44 Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Broadbent E, MacDonald B, Jago L, Juergens M, Mazharullah O (2007) Human reactions to good and bad robots. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEE/RSJ  international conference on intelligent robots and systems, San Diego, California, pp 3703–3708 Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Plaisant C, Druin A, Lathan C, Dakhane K, Edwards K, Vice JM (2000) A story telling robot for pediatric rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 4th International ACM conference on assistive technologies, Arlington, Virginia, pp 50–55 Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Sun H, Zhang P (2006) The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64:53–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Young JE, Hawkins R, Sharlin E, Igarashi T (2009) Toward acceptable domestic robots: applying insights from social psychology. Int J Soc Robot 1:95–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health SciencesThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations