International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 565–573 | Cite as

Social and Assistive Robotics in Dementia Care: Ethical Recommendations for Research and Practice

  • Marcello Ienca
  • Fabrice Jotterand
  • Constantin Vică
  • Bernice Elger
Article

Abstract

The steadily growing number of older adults with dementia worldwide poses a major challenge for global public health. The integration of robotics into both formal and informal dementia care opens up new possibilities for improving the life of patients and alleviating the burden on caregivers and the healthcare services. However, ethical, legal and social implications should be considered early in the development of assistive and social robots for dementia to prevent slow adoption, incorrect implementation and inappropriate use. This paper delineates the ethical landscape and provides recommendations for design and use aimed at protecting users and maximizing the benefit in assisting such vulnerable population.

Keywords

Dementia Alzheimer’s disease Robotics Ethics Informed consent Recommendations 

References

  1. 1.
    International AsD (2015) World Alzheimer Report 2015: the global impact of dementia. An analysis of prevalence, incidence, cost and trends. World Alzheimer Report 2015. Alzheimer’s Disease International (ADI), LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prince M, Guerchet M, Prina M (2013) The global impact of dementia 2013–2050. Alzheimer’s Disease International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alzheimer’s Association (2015) 2015 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement 11(3):332–384Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arling G, Tu W, Stump TE, Rosenman MB, Counsell SR, Callahan CM (2013) Impact of dementia on payments for long-term and acute care in an elderly cohort. Med Care 51(7):575–581. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31828d4d4a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiao CY, Wu HS, Hsiao CY (2015) Caregiver burden for informal caregivers of patients with dementia: a systematic review. Int Nurs Rev 62(3):340–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joling KJ, van Marwijk HW, Veldhuijzen AE, van der Horst HE, Scheltens P, Smit F, van Hout HP (2015) The two-year incidence of depression and anxiety disorders in spousal caregivers of persons with dementia: who is at the greatest risk? Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 23(3):293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhimani R (2014) Understanding the burden on caregivers of people with Parkinson’s: a scoping review of the literature. Rehabil Res Pract 2014:1–8. doi:10.1155/2014/718527
  8. 8.
    Bennett S, Thomas AJ (2014) Depression and dementia: cause, consequence or coincidence? Maturitas 79(2):184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cotrell V, Schulz R (1993) The perspective of the patient with Alzheimer’s disease: a neglected dimension of dementia research. Gerontologist 33(2):205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Health Organization (2015) International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision: ICD-10 version: 2015. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reitz C, Mayeux R (2014) Alzheimer disease: epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, risk factors and biomarkers. Biochem Pharmacol 88(4):640–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plassman BL, Langa KM, Fisher GG, Heeringa SG, Weir DR, Ofstedal MB, Burke JR, Hurd MD, Potter GG, Rodgers WL (2007) Prevalence of dementia in the United States: the aging, demographics, and memory study. Neuroepidemiology 29(1–2):125–132Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morris JC (1997) Clinical dementia rating: a reliable and valid diagnostic and staging measure for dementia of the Alzheimer type. Int Psychogeriatr 9(S1):173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benke T, Karner E, Petermichl S, Prantner V, Kemmler G (2014) Neuropsychological deficits associated with route learning in Alzheimer disease, MCI, and normal aging. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 28(2):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bharucha AJ, Anand V, Forlizzi J, Dew MA, Reynolds CF III, Stevens S, Wactlar H (2009) Intelligent assistive technology applications to dementia care: current capabilities, limitations, and future challenges. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 17(2):88–104. doi:10.1097/JGP.0b013e318187dde5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pollack ME (2005) Intelligent technology for an aging population: the use of AI to assist elders with cognitive impairment. AI Mag 26(2):9–24Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pollack ME (2007) Intelligent assistive technology: the present and the future. In: Conati C, McCoy K, Paliouras G (eds) User modeling 2007, proceedings, vol 4511. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. pp 5–6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duff P, Dolphin C (2007) Cost–benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia—Part 2: results from employing the ENABLE cost–benefit model in practice. Technol Disabil 19(2):79–90Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson WL, Wiener JM (2015) The impact of assistive technologies on formal and informal home care. Gerontologist 55(3):422–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orpwood R, Sixsmith A, Torrington J, Chadd J, Gibson G, Chalfont G (2007) Designing technology to support quality of life of people with dementia. Technol Disabil 19(2):103–112Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Commission (2007) i2010 independent living for the ageing societyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martín F, Agüero CE, Cañas JM, Valenti M, Martínez-Martín P (2013) Robotherapy with dementia patients. Int J Adv Robot Syst 10(10):1–7Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bernabei V, De Ronchi D, La Ferla T, Moretti F, Tonelli L, Ferrari B, Forlani M, Atti AR (2013) Animal-assisted interventions for elderly patients affected by dementia or psychiatric disorders: a review. J Psychiatr Res 47(6):762–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shibata T, Wada K (2010) Robot therapy: a new approach for mental healthcare of the elderly—a mini-review. Gerontology 57(4):378–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kramer B (2014) Dementia caregivers in Germany and their acceptance of new technologies for care: the information gap. Public Policy Aging Rep 24(1):32–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sugihara T, Fujinami T, Phaal R, Ikawa Y (2012) Gaps between assistive technologies and dementia care. In: Technology management for emerging technologies (PICMET), 2012 proceedings of PICMET’12. July 29 2012–Aug 2 2012, pp 3067–3072Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lauriks S, Reinersmann A, Van der Roest HG, Meiland F, Davies RJ, Moelaert F, Mulvenna MD, Nugent CD, Dröes R-M (2007) Review of ICT-based services for identified unmet needs in people with dementia. Ageing Res Rev 6(3):223–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peterson C, Prasad NR, Prasad R (2012) The future of assistive technologies for dementia. Gerontechnology 11(2):195Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Randhawa G (2013) Moving to a user-driven research paradigm. EGEMS 1(2):1–6Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van der Roest HG, Meiland FJM, Comijs HC, Derksen E, Jansen APD, van Hout HPJ, Jonker C, Dröes R-M (2009) What do community-dwelling people with dementia need? A survey of those who are known to care and welfare services. Int Psychogeriatr 21(05):949–965. doi:10.1017/S1041610209990147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robinson L, Brittain K, Lindsay S, Jackson D, Olivier P (2009) Keeping In Touch Everyday (KITE) project: developing assistive technologies with people with dementia and their carers to promote independence. Int Psychogeriatr 21(03):494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Niemeijer AR, Frederiks BJM, Riphagen II, Legemaate J, Eefsting JA, Hertogh CMPM (2010) Ethical and practical concerns of surveillance technologies in residential care for people with dementia or intellectual disabilities: an overview of the literature. Int Psychogeriatr 22(07):1129–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heerink M, Albo-Canals J, Valenti-Soler M, Martinez-Martin P, Zondag J, Smits C, Anisuzzaman S (2013) Exploring requirements and alternative pet robots for robot assisted therapy with older adults with dementia. In: Herrmann G, Pearson M, Lenz A, Bremner P, Spiers A, Leonards U (eds) Social robotics. Springer, pp 104–115Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2002) International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Bull Med Ethics 182:17Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Alzheimer Europe (2011) The ethics of dementia research. Alzheimer EuropeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Warner J, McCarney R, Griffin M, Hill K, Fisher P (2008) Participation in dementia research: rates and correlates of capacity to give informed consent. J Med Ethics 34(3):167–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Warren SD, Brandeis LD (1890) The right to privacy. Harvard law review, pp 193–220Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Niemeijer A, Hertogh C (2008) Implantable tags: don’t close the door for aunt Millie! Am J Bioeth 8(8):50–52Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Directive EU (1995) 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Official Journal of the EC, vol 23, no 6Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tergesen A, Inada M (2010) It’s not a stuffed animal, it’sa $6,000 medical device. The Wall Street Journal, p 1. 21/06/2010. ISSN: 0099-9660Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Calo CJ, Hunt-Bull N, Lewis L, Metzler T (2011) Ethical implications of using the paro robot. In: 2011 AAAI workshop (WS-2011-2012), pp 20–24Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Biomedical EthicsUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Rueckert-Hartman College for Health ProfessionsRegis UniversityDenverUSA
  3. 3.Research Center in Applied EthicsUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations