Identifying Specific Reasons Behind Unmet Needs May Inform More Specific Eldercare Robot Design

  • Rebecca Q. Stafford
  • Bruce A. MacDonald
  • Elizabeth Broadbent
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7621)


Many countries are facing aging and aged populations and a shortage of eldercare resources. Eldercare robots have been proposed to help close this resource gap. Prevalence of eldercare robots may be enhanced by more acceptable robot design. Current assistive robot design guidelines are general and consequently difficult to translate into specific acceptable design. This paper proposes a method for developing more specific eldercare robot design guidelines. Technology acceptance models suggest acceptable robots need to be perceived as useful as well as easy to use. As older people often have high levels of unmet need, knowledge of the needs of older people and other eldercare stakeholders can suggest how robots could be usefully deployed. It is further proposed that determining the specific reasons why eldercare-needs are unmet may help lead to more specific design guidelines for eldercare robot form and function, as well as the design of robot marketing, distribution and deployment strategies.


robots older people needs HRI technology acceptance usercentered design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    United Nations: World Population Prospects: The 2006 revision. United Nations, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Super, N.: Who Will Be There to Care? The Growing Gap Between Caregiver Supply and Demand. National Health Policy Forum. George Washington University, Washington DC (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beer, J.M., Smarr, C.A., Chen, T.L., Prakash, A., Mitzner, T.L., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: The Domesticated Robot: Design Guidelines for Assisting Older Adults to Age in Place. In: 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 335–342 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A., Charness, N., Sharit, J.: Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches. CRC (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maciuszek, D., Aberg, J., Shahmehri, N.: What Help do Older People Need?: Constructing a Functional Design Space of Electronic Assistive Technology Applications. In: 7th International SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 4–11. ACM, USA (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broadbent, E., Stafford, R., MacDonald, B.: Acceptance of Healthcare Robots for the Older Population: Review and Future Directions. Int. J. Social Robotics, 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shibata, T., Kawaguchi, Y., Wada, K.: Investigation on People living with Seal Robot at home. Int. J. Social Robotics, 1–11 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Mahoney, R.: Robotic Products for Rehabilitation: Status and Strategy. In: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Bath, UK, vol. 97, pp. 12–22 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breazeal, C.: Robot in Society: Friend or Appliance. In: Autonomous Agents Workshop on Emotion-Based Agent Architectures, Seattle, WA, pp. 18–26 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Kerse, N., Knock, B., Patience, A., MacDonald, B.: Retirement Home Staff and Residents’ Preferences for Healthcare Robots. In: 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Communication, Japan (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flandorfer, P.: Population Ageing and Socially Assistive Robots for Elderly Persons. Int. J. of Population Research 2012, 1–13 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forlizzi, J., DiSalvo, C., Gemperle, F.: Assistive Robotics and an Ecology of Elders Living Independently in their Homes. In: 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Part II: Novel Interaction Methods and Techniques, pp. 25–59 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gardner, L., Powell, L., Page, M.: An Appraisal of a Selection of Products Currently Available to Older Consumers. Applied Ergonomics 24, 35–39 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J., Robinson, P.: Developing a Practical Inclusive Interface Design Approach. Interacting with Computers 14, 271–299 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kujala, S.: User Involvement: A Review of the Benefits and Challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology 22, 1–16 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis, F.D.: User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts. Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies 38, 475–487 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. Mis. Quarterly, 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults. Int. J. Social Robotics, 1–15 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bagozzi, R.P.: The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift. J. of the Ass. for Information Systems 8, 244–254 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: The Influence of a Robot’s Social Abilities on Acceptance by Elderly Users. In: 15th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN, pp. 521–526 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuo, I.-H., Broadbent, E., MacDonald, B.: Designing a Robotic Assistant for Healthcare Applications. In: The 7th Conference of Health Informatics, Rotorua, New Zealand (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M.V., Fornara, F.: Robots in a Domestic Setting: A Psychological Approach. Universal Access in the Information Society 4, 146–155 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E., Goetz, J., Kurtz, C., Stroback, J.: The ELDer project: Social, Emotional, and Environmental Factors in the Design of Eldercare Technologies. In: 2000 Conference on Universal Usability, pp. 72–79. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Patience, A., Knock, B., Kerse, N., Day, K., MacDonald, B.A.: Attitudes towards Healthcare Robots in a Retirement Village. Aust. J. Ageing. 31, 115–120 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dario, P., Guglielmelli, E., Laschi, C., Teti, G.: MOVAID: A Personal Robot in Everyday Life of Disabled and Elderly people. Technology and Disability J. 10, 77–93 (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parlitz, C., HÃgele, M., Klein, P., Seifert, J., Dautenhahn, K.: Care-O-bot3- Rationale for Human-Robot Interaction Design. In: 39th International Symposium on Robotics (ISR), Korea, pp. 275–280 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fraunhofer: Service Robots in Nursing Homes - Popular among Residents and Carers Alike,
  29. 29.
    Wu, Y.H., Fassert, C., Rigaud, A.S.: Designing Robots for the Elderly: Appearance Issues and Beyond. Arch. Gerontology & Geriatrics 54, 121–126 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sixsmith, A., Sixsmith, J.: Smart Care Technologies: Meeting Whose Needs? J. Telemedicine & Telecare 6, 190–192 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Horrocks, S., Somerset, M., Stoddart, H., Peters, T.J.: What Prevents Older People from Seeking Treatment for Urinary Incontinence? Family Practice 21, 689–696 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ray, C., Mondada, F., Siegwart, R.: What do people expect from robots? In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3816–3821 (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D.: Toward a Psychological Science of Advanced Technology Design for Older Adults. Js. Gerontology Series B 65, 645–653 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sung, J.Y., Christensen, H.I., Grinter, R.E.: Sketching the Future: Assessing User Needs for Domestic Robots. In: 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication RO-MAN (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stafford, R.Q., Broadbent, E., Jayawardena, C., Unger, U., Kuo, I.H., Igic, A., Wong, R., Kerse, N., Watson, C., MacDonald, B.A.: Improved Robot Attitudes and Emotions at a Retirement Home After Meeting a Robot. In: International Symposium on Robots and Human Interaction, pp. 82–87. IEEE, Viareggio (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bethel, C.L., Murphy, R.R.: Review of Human Studies Methods in HRI and Recommendations. Int. J. of Social Robotics, 1–13 (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maslow, A.H.: A Theory of Human Motivation. Psych. Review 50, 370–396 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Giuliani, M.V., Scopelliti, M., Fornara, F.: Elderly People at Home: Technological Help in Everyday Activities. In: IEEE International Workshop on Robots and Human Interactive Communication, USA, pp. 365–370 (2005)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Katz, S., Akpom, C.A.: A Measure of Primary Sociobiological Functions. Int. J. of Health Services. 6, 493–507 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lawton, M.P., Brody, E.: Assessment of Older People: Self-maintaining and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living. Gerontology 9, 179–186 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reynolds, T., Thornicroft, G., Abas, M., Woods, B., Hoe, J., Leese, M., Orrell, M.: Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE). The British J. of Psychiatry 176, 444–452 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Walters, K., Iliffe, S., Orrell, M.: An Exploration of Help-seeking Behaviour in Older People with Unmet Needs. Family Practice 18, 277–282 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee, M.K., Forlizzi, J., Rybski, P.E., Crabbe, F., Chung, W., Finkle, J., et al.: The Snackbot: Documenting the Design of a Robot for Long-Term Human-Robot Interaction. In: 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 7–14 (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mast, M., Burmester, M., Berner, W., Facal, D., Pigini, L., Blasi, L.: Semi-Autonomous Teleoperated Learning In-Home Service Robots for Elderly Care (2010),
  45. 45.
    Mahani, M., Eklundh, K.S.: A Survey of the Relation of the Task Assistance of a Robot to its Social Role. KTH Computer Science and Communication. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Q. Stafford
    • 1
  • Bruce A. MacDonald
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Broadbent
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological MedicineThe University of AucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Electrical EngineeringThe University of AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations