Healthcare Robots in Homes of Rural Older Adults

  • Josephine R. Orejana
  • Bruce A. MacDonald
  • Ho Seok Ahn
  • Kathryn Peri
  • Elizabeth BroadbentEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9388)


Older adults in rural communities who have chronic health conditions are often isolated from social support and medical clinics. Robots may be able to assist with day to day healthcare and provide companionship. This paper presents four case studies of older adults who had chronic health conditions in a rural community. They were given a healthcare robot in their homes for a period of three months to a year. The robot reminded people to take medications, had entertainment and memory games, and skype. Rates of hospitalizations, primary care visits, and phone calls to the medical practitioners before the study began were compared to rates during the study period. Participants also completed questionnaires about their quality of life, mental health, medication adherence, and robot attitudes and were interviewed. The results showed a decrease in primary care visits and phone calls to the practitioners while the robot was present and increases in quality of life were observed. Despite encountering technical issues, patients were mostly positive and accepting of the robot, acknowledging its benefits as a companion.


Ageing in place Healthcare robots Companion Adherence Quality of life 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smith, K.B., Humphreys, J.S., Wilson, M.G.: Addressing the health disadvantage of rural populations: How does epidemiological evidence inform rural health policies and research? Aust. J. Rural Health 16, 56–66 (2008). doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2008.00953.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis, R., Magilvy, J.K.: Quiet pride: The experience of chronic illness by rural older adults. J. Nurs. Scholarship 32, 385–390 (2000). doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2000.00385.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marek, K.D., Antle, L.: Medication management of the community-dwelling older adult. In: Hughes, R.G. (ed.) Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses, pp. 499–536. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kivett, V.R.: Discriminators of loneliness among the rural elderly: Implications for intervention. The Gerontologist 19, 108–115 (1979). doi: 10.1093/geront/19.1.108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Russell, D.W., Cutrona, C.E., De La Mora, A., Wallace, R.B.: Loneliness and nursing home admission among rural older adults. Psychol. Aging 12, 574–589 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scocco, P., Rapattoni, M., Fantoni, G.: Nursing home institutionalization: a source of eustress or distress for the elderly? Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 21, 281–287 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davey, J.: “Ageing in place”: the views of older homeowners on maintenance, renovation and adaptation. Soc. Policy J. NZ 27, 128–141 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jayawardena, C., Kuo, I., Datta, C., Stafford, R., Broadbent, E., MacDonald, B.: Design, implementation and field tests of a socially assistive robot for the elderly: HealthBot version 2. In: 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), pp. 1837–1842 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., Broadbent, E.: The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: A review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 575–591 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pineau, J., Montemerlo, M., Pollack, M., Roy, N., Thrun, S.: Towards robotic assistants in nursing homes: Challenges and results. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42, 271–281 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., Kerse, N., Broadbent, E.: The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: A randomized controlled trial. J. Amer. Dir. Assoc. 14, 661–667 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hutson, S., Lim, S.L., Bentley, P.J., Bianchi-Berthouze, N., Bowling, A.: Investigating the suitability of social robots for the wellbeing of the elderly. In: D’Mello, S., Graesser, A., Schuller, B., Martin, J.C. (eds.) Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, pp. 578–587 (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24600-5_61
  13. 13.
    Broadbent, E., Peri, K., Kerse, N., Jayawardena, C., Kuo, I., Datta, C., MacDonald, B.: Robots in older people’s homes to improve medication adherence and quality of life: a randomised cross-over trial. In: Beetz, M., Johnston, B., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) ICSR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8755, pp. 64–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Statistics New Zealand: Census populations and dwelling tables (2012).
  15. 15.
    Broadbent, E., Jayawardena, C., Kerse, N., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.A.: Human-robot interaction research to improve quality of life in elder care- an approach and issues. Paper presented at the 25th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2011). Workshop on Human-Robot Interaction in Elder Care, San Francisco (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McLeod, S.A.: Case Study Method (2008).
  17. 17.
    Ware Jr, J.E., Kosinski, M., Keller, S.D.: A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med. Care 34, 220–233 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Patience, A., Knock, B., Kerse, N., Day, K., MacDonald, B.A.: Attitudes towards health care robots in a retirement village. Aust. J. Aging. (2011). doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6612.2011.00551.x Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horne, R., Weinman, J.: Self-regulation and self-management in asthma: Exploring the role of illness perceptions and treatment beliefs in explaining non-adherence to preventer medication. Psychol. & Health 17, 17–32 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zasloff, R.L.: Measuring attachment to companion animals: A dog is not a cat is not a bird. Appl. Animal Behaviour Sci. 47, 43–48 (1996). doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01009-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In: The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. RO-MAN 2009, pp. 528–533 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Office of Public Health Assessment: Health status in Utah: The medical outcomes study SF-12 (Utah Health Status Survey Report). Utah Dept of Health, Salt Lake City (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith, J.A., Jarman, M., Osborn, M.: Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Murray, M., Chamberlain, K. (eds.) Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and Methods. Sage, London (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Ruyter, B., Saini, P., Markopoulos, P., van Breemen, A.: Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interact. Comput. 17, 522–541 (2005). doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2005.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prakash, A., Beer, J.M., Deyle, T., Smarr, C.A., Chen, T.L., Mitzner, T.L., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: Older adults’ medication management in the home: how can robots help? In: 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 283–290 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josephine R. Orejana
    • 1
  • Bruce A. MacDonald
    • 1
  • Ho Seok Ahn
    • 1
  • Kathryn Peri
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Broadbent
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.The University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations