Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying the Potential for Robotics to Assist Older Adults in Different Living Environments

  • Survey
  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As the older adult population grows and becomes more diverse, so will their needs and preferences for living environments. Many adults over 65 years of age require some assistance (Administration on Aging in A profile of older Americans: 2009, U.S.D.o.H.a.H. Services, 2009; Ball et al. in J. Aging Stud. 18:467–483, 2004); yet it is important for their feelings of well-being that the assistance not restrict their autonomy (Barkay in Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 8(4):198–209, 2002). Not only is autonomy correlated with quality of life (Bowling in J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 65(3):273–280, 2011), autonomy enhancement may improve functionality (Ball et al. in J. Aging Stud. 18:467–483, 2004; Greiner in Am. J. Publ. Health 86(1):62–66, 1996). The goal of this paper is to provide guidance for the development of technology to enhance autonomy and quality of life for older adults. We explore the potential for robotics to meet these needs. We evaluated older adults’ diverse living situations and the predictors of residential moves to higher levels of care in the United States. We also examined older adults’ needs for assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), and medical conditions when living independently or in a long-term care residence. By providing support for older adults, mobile manipulator robots may reduce need-driven, undesired moves from residences with lower levels of care (i.e., private homes, assisted living) to those with higher levels of care (i.e., skilled nursing).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Abbreviations

ADLs::

Activities of daily living

CCRC::

Continuing care retirement community

COPD::

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

IADLs::

Instrumental activities of daily living

NORC::

Naturally occurring retirement community

SNF::

Skilled nursing facility

References

  1. Administration on Aging (2009) A profile of older Americans: 2009. USDoHaH Services

  2. Ball MM et al (2004) Independence in assisted living. J Aging Stud 18:467–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barkay A (2002) Elderly residents’ participation and autonomy within a geriatric ward in a public institution. Int J Nurs Pract 8(4):198–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bowling A (2011) Which measure of quality of life performs best in older age? A comparison of the OPQOL, CASP-19 and WHOQOL-OLD. J Epidemiol Community Health 65(3):273–280

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Greiner PA (1996) The loss of independence in activities of daily living: the role of low normal cognitive function in elderly nuns. Am J Publ Health 86(1):62–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. United Nations (2002) World population aging. United Nations Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mitzner TL et al (2011) Older adults’ needs for assistance as a function of living environment. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomic society 55th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 152–156

    Google Scholar 

  8. European Commission (2012) Public attitudes toward robots. D-GfISaMI TNS Opinion & Social, Editor

  9. Jacobs T, Graf B (2012) Practical evaluation of service robots for support and routine tasks in an elderly care facility. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO), pp 46–49

    Google Scholar 

  10. Meng Q, Lee MH (2006) Design issues for assistive robotics for the elderly. Adv Eng Inform 20(2):171–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pearce AJ et al (2012) Robotics to enable older adults to remain living at home. J Aging Res 1–10

  12. Beer JM et al (2012) The domesticated robot: design guidelines for assisting older adults to age in place. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 335–342

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beer JM et al (2012) “Telling your robot what to do”: older adults’ preferences for controlling home robots. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 56th annual meeting 2012. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  14. Prakash A et al (2013) Older adults’ medication management in the home: how can robots help? In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 283–290

    Google Scholar 

  15. Smarr C-A et al (2012) Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assistance for everyday living tasks. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 56th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  16. Broadbent E et al (2011) Mental schemas of robots as more human-like are associated with higher blood pressure and negative emotions in a human-robot interaction. Int J Soc Robot 3(3):291–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stafford R et al (2013) Does the robot have a mind? Mind perception and attitudes towards robots predict use of an eldercare robot. Int J Soc Robot 1–16

  18. Davis FD (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results, in (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), MIo Technology, Boston, MA

  19. Davis FD (1989) Preceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag Inf Syst Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Davis FD (1993) User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man-Mach Stud 38:475–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chau PYK, Hu PJ (2001) Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decis Sci 32(4):699–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Heerink M et al (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2:361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. US Department of Health and Human Services (1998) Informal caregiving: Compassion in action, USDOHAH services

  24. National Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2004) The state of aging and health in America 2004, NCfH Statistics

  25. Baztan JJ, Galvez CP, Socorro A (2009) Recovery of functional impairment after acute illness and mortality: one-year follow-up study. Gerontology 55(3):269–274

    Google Scholar 

  26. National Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2011) Healthy aging: Helping people to live long and productive lives and enjoy a good quality of life, NCfH Statistics

  27. American Association of Retired Persons (2005) Beyond 50 survey

  28. Kostka T (2010) Relationship of quality of life to dispositional optimism, health locus of control and self-efficacy in older subjects living in different environments, quality of life research: an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment. Care Rehabil 19(3):351–361

    Google Scholar 

  29. American Association of Retired Persons (2001) In the middle: a report on multicultural boomers coping with family and aging issues

  30. Wahrendorf M et al (2010) Perceived reciprocity in social exchange and health functioning in early old age: prospective findings from the GAZEL study. Aging Ment Health 14:425–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ryan RM (2006) Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? J Pers 74(6):1557–1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rodin J (1986) Aging and health: effects of the sense of control. Science 233(4770):1271–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Boyle G (2005) The role of autonomy in explaining mental ill-health and depression among older people in long-term care settings. Ageing Soc 25(5):731–748

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Schulz R, Brenner G (1977) Relocation of the aged: a review and theoretical analysis. J Gerontol 32(3):323–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sikorska-Simmons E, Wright JD (2007) Determinants of resident autonomy in assisted living facilities. A review of the literature. Care Manag J 8(4):187–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Menec VH (1997) The interactive effect of perceived control and functional status on health and mortality among old and old-old adults. J Geront, Ser B, Psychol Sci Soc Sci 52B(3):P118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Agree EM, Freedman VA (2011) A quality-of-life scale for assistive technology: results of a pilot study of aging and technology. Phys Ther 91(12):1780–1788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lindenberger U (2008) Psychological principles of successful aging technologies: a mini-review. Gerontology 54(1):59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. King C et al (2011) Dusty: an assistive mobile manipulator that retrieves dropped objects for people with motor impairments. Disabil Rehabil, Assist Technol 7(2):168–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rentschler AJ (2008) Clinical evaluation of Guido robotic walker. J Rehabil Res Dev 45(9):1281–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Choi YS et al (2009) Hand it over or set it down: a user study of object delivery with an assistive mobile manipulator. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), Toyama, Japan, p 736

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cousins S (2011) Robots for humanity. Available from http://www.willowgarage.com/blog/2011/07/13/robots-humanity

  43. Taipalus T, Kosuge K (2005) Development of service robot for fetching objects in home environment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation, pp 451–456

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA (2003) Home assistant Care-O-bot

  45. Dario P (2001) Humanoids and personal robots: design and experiments. J Robot Syst 18(12):673–690

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Nomura T et al (2009) Age differences and images of robots. Social survey in Japan. Interact Stud 10(3):374–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kawamura K (1995) Design philosophy for service robots. J Robot Autonom Syst 18:109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kawamura K et al (1996) Humanoids: future robots for home and factory. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on humanoid robots, pp 53–62

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pew Research Center (2010) The return of the multi-generational household

  50. US Census (2005) 65+ in the United States: 2005, US CENSUS

  51. US Census (2003) America’s families and living arrangements: 2003, US CENSUS

  52. Bookman A et al (2007) Family caregiver handbook: finding elder care resources in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  53. US General Accounting Office [GAO] (2004) Assisted living: examples of state efforts to improve consumer Protections, USGA Office

  54. Zimmerman S et al (2005) Dementia care and quality of life in assisted living and nursing homes. Gerontologist 45(1):5–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Frytak JR (2001) Outcome trajectories for assisted living and nursing facility residents in Oregon. Health Serv Res 36(1 Pt 1):91–111

    Google Scholar 

  56. Phillips CD, Hawes C (2000) High service or high privacy assisted living facilities, their residents, and staff: Results from a national survey. USDoHaH Services, Rockville, MD

  57. Aud MA, Rantz MJ (2005) Admissions to skilled nursing facilities from assisted living facilities. J Nurs Care Qual 20(1):16–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Litwak E (1987) Migration patterns among the elderly: a developmental perspective. Gerontologist 27(3):266–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. US Census (1995) Sixty-five plus in the United States, US Census

  60. US Census (2010) The older population: 2010

  61. Mitchell JM (2000) Quality of life in assisted living homes: a multidimensional analysis. J Gerontol Ser B, Psychol Sci Soc Sci 55B(2):117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Saunders JC (2008) Lessons learned from 5 women as they transition into assisted living. Geriatr Nurs 29(6):369–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Biedenharn PJ (1991) Elderly community residents’ reactions to the nursing home: an analysis of their nursing home-related beliefs. Gerontologist 31(1):107–115

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  64. Haight B, Michel Y, Hendrix S (1998) Life review: preventing despair in newly relocated nursing facility residents: short- and long-term effects. Int J Aging Hum Dev 47:119–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Andersen RM (1995) Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 36(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  66. Luppa M (2010) Prediction of institutionalization in the elderly. a systematic review. Age Ageing 39(1):31–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bookwala J (2004) Concurrent and long-term predictors of older adults’ use of community-based long-term care services: the caregiver health effects study. J Aging Health 16(1):88–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Samus QM et al (2009) Correlates of functional dependence among recently admitted assisted living residents with and without dementia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 10(5):323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Temple A, Andel R, Dobbs D (2010) Setting of care modifies risk of nursing home placement for older adults with dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 25(3):275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Finlayson M (2005) Activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) items were stable over time in a longitudinal study on aging. J Clin Epidemiol 58(4):338–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Lieto JM (2005) Reduced ability to self-administer medication is associated with assisted living placement in a continuing care retirement community. J Am Med Dir Assoc 6(4):246–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Armstrong EP, Rhoads M, Meiling F (2001) Medication usage patterns in assisted living facilities. Consult Pharm 6:65–69

    Google Scholar 

  73. Gabrel CS (2000) Characteristics of elderly nursing home current residents and discharges: data from the 1997 National Nursing Home Survey. Advanced Data 2000(312):1–15

  74. Friedman SM (2005) Characteristics predicting nursing home admission in the program of all-inclusive care for elderly people. Gerontologist 45(2):157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Black BS (1999) Predictors of nursing home placement among elderly public housing residents. Gerontologist 39(5):559–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Jagger C (2001) Patterns of onset of disability in activities of daily living with age. J Am Geriatr Soc 49(4):404–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wong A et al (2010) Predictors of long-term care utilization by Dutch hospital patients aged 65+. BMC Health Serv Res 10:110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Andel R, Hyer K, Slack A (2007) Risk factors for nursing home placement in older adults enrolled in medicare and medicaid. J Aging Health 19(2):213–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wygaard HA, Albreksten G (1992) Risk factors for admission to a nursing home: a study of elderly people receiving home nursing. Scand J Prim Health Care 10:128–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Tomiak M et al (2000) Factors associated with nursing-home entry for elders in Manitoba, Canada. J Gerontol A, Biol Sci Med Sci 55(5):279–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Phillips CD et al (2003) Effects of facility characteristics on departures from assisted living: results from a national study. Gerontologist 43(5):690–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Jungers CM (2010) Leaving home: an examination of late-life relocation among older adults. J Couns Dev 88(4):416–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. US Census (2008) American community survey, US Census

  84. Lawton MP (1969) Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 9(3):179–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Donelan K (2002) Challenged to care: informal caregivers in a changing health system. Health Aff 21(4):222–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Hopp FP (1999) Patterns and predictors of formal and informal care among elderly persons living in board and care homes. Gerontologist 39(2):167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. US Department of Health and Human Services (2000) National home and hospice survey: Current home health care patients, USDOHAH Services

  88. Badger TA (1998) Depression, physical health impairment and service use among older adults. Public Health Nurs 15(2):136–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Callahan CM (1994) Longitudinal study of depression and health services use among elderly primary care patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 42(8):833–838

    Google Scholar 

  90. Nagata K et al (1998) Delivery by hand between human and robot based on fingertip force-torque information. In: Proceedings of the intelligent robots and systems IEEE/RSJ international conference, p 2

    Google Scholar 

  91. Jindai M (2006) A study on robot-human system with consideration of individual preferences. JSME Int J, Ser C ,Mech Syst Mach Elem Manuf 49(4):1033–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Agah A, Tanie K (1997) Human interaction with a service robot: mobile-manipulator handing over an object to a human. In: Proceedings of the robotics and automation IEEE international conference, pp 575–580

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  93. Kajikawa S et al (1995) Motion planning for hand-over between human and robot. In: Proceedings of the human robot interaction and cooperative robots IEEE/RSJ international conference, pp 193–199

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kidd CD, Taggart W, Turkle S (2006) Sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), p 3972

    Google Scholar 

  95. Beer JM, Takayama L (2011) Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: acceptance, benefits, and concerns. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI)

    Google Scholar 

  96. Lewin-VHI Inc (1996) National study of assisted living for the frail elderly: Literature review update, DoHaHSOotASfPaEaAo Aging

  97. Utz RL (2003) Assisted living: the philosophical challenges of every-day practice. J Appl Gerontol 22:379–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Cohen MA, Miller J (2000) The use of nursing home and assisted living facilities among privately insured and non-privately insured disabled elders

  99. National Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2001) Facts and trends: The assisted living sourcebook 2001, NCfH Statistics

  100. Kaiser Family Foundation (2006) Nursing home transition programs: Perspectives of state medicaid officials

  101. Hawes C et al (2003) A national survey of assisted living facilities. Gerontologist 43:875–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Rosenblatt A et al (2004) The Maryland assisted living study: prevalence, recognition, and treatment of dementia and other psychiatric disorders in the assisted living population of central Maryland. J Am Geriatr Soc 52:1618–1625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Boustani M et al (2005) Characteristics associated with behavioral symptoms related to dementia in long-term care residents. Gerontologist 45(1):56–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Kang H et al (2010) Anxiety, depression, and cognitive impairment in dementia-specific and traditional assisted living. J Gerontol Nurs 36(1):18–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. US Department of Health and Human Services (2004) End-of-life care in nursing homes: 2004 national nursing home survey, USDOHAH Services

  106. Hawes C, Rose M, Phillips C (1999) A national study of assisted living for the frail elderly, executive summary: Results of a national survey of facilities

  107. Auyeung TW et al (2008) Functional decline in cognitive impairment—the relationship between physical and cognitive function. Neuroepidemiology 31(3):167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. International Organization for Standardization, Safety requirements for industrial robots—Part 1: Robots. In: Robots and robotic devices ISO: Geneva, Switzerland

  109. International Organization for Standardization, Safety requirements for industrial robots—Part 2: Robot systems and integration. In: Robots and robotic devices ISO: Geneva, Switzerland

  110. International Organization for Standardization, Safety requirements for non-industrial robots—non-medical personal care robot. In: Robots and robotic devices. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland

  111. Workshop on standardization for service robots: current status and future directions. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) 2010: Taipei, Taiwan

  112. Workshop on safety in human-robot coexistence & interaction: how can standardization and research benefit from each other? In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) 2012: Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal

  113. Starck PL (1992) The management of suffering in a nursing home: an ethnographic study, National League For Nursing (15): pp 127–153

  114. Chapin R, Dobbs-Kepper D, Oslund P (2001) Factors that influence residents’ length of stay in assisted living: a longitudinal analysis. Sr Hous Care J 9(1):85–100

    Google Scholar 

  115. Geerlings SW (2005) Predicting transitions in the use of informal and professional care by older adults. Ageing Soc 25(1):111–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Beith B (2001) Needs and requirements in health care for the older adult: challenges and opportunities for the new millennium. In: Human factors interventions for the health care of older adults. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 13–30

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute on Aging) Grant P01 AG17211 under the auspices of the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE; www.create-center.org). Portions of this report were presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (September, 2011). The report was inspired by our collaboration with Willow Garage (www.willowgarage.com) who selected the Georgia Institute of Technology as a beta PR2 site for research (www.willowgarage.com/blog/2010/06/07/spotlight-georgia-tech).

This project is a collaborative research effort on human-robot interaction between the Human Factors and Aging Laboratory (Co-Directors Wendy A. Rogers and Arthur D. Fisk; www.hfaging.org) and the Healthcare Robotics Laboratory (Director: Charles C. Kemp; www.healthcare-robotics.com). Many thanks to the researchers in both laboratories for their contributions. Thanks also to Estelle Bae for her assistance on this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Tracy L. Mitzner, Tiffany L. Chen, Charles C. Kemp & Wendy A. Rogers

Authors
  1. Tracy L. Mitzner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiffany L. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles C. Kemp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wendy A. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracy L. Mitzner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mitzner, T.L., Chen, T.L., Kemp, C.C. et al. Identifying the Potential for Robotics to Assist Older Adults in Different Living Environments. Int J of Soc Robotics 6, 213–227 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0218-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0218-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation