Yaşlı Yetişkinlerin Mobiliteleri İçin Mobil Hizmet Robotları: Günlük Yardım İçin Konut Ortamlarındaki Tutumlarının Araştırılması

Öz

Arka plan: Dünya genç nüfusun artışıyla birlikte yaşlanan nüfusun sayısı arttıkça, yaşlı bakımı kaçınılmaz hale gelmiştir. Yaşlı bakımıyla ilgili olarak, kemik ve kasların bozulması nedeniyle yaşlı bireyler için mobilite en büyük zorluktur. Çözüm, yaşlı bireylerin yaşadığı ve günlük yaşamları boyunca deneyimledikleri yerleşik çevrelerde bağımsızlık sağlamaktır. Teknolojik incelemeler, sosyal yardımcı teknolojiler içinde bakım hizmetlerine odaklanmaktadır. Hükümetlerin karşılaştığı yaşlı bakımı ihtiyacının artmasıyla birlikte, sosyal robot geliştirmek için pratik çözümleri anlamak önemlidir. Amaç: Bu araştırma, mobil hizmet robotlarının görünümünün etkisini incelemeyi, yaşlı yetişkinlerin tutumlarındaki değişiklikleri keşfetmeyi ve yaş ve eğitim arasındaki ilişkilerde potansiyel aracı faktörleri değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Başka bir amaç, yaşlı yetişkinlerin günlük yaşam aktivitelerindeki mobilite görevlerini analiz etmektir. Antalya ve Kocaeli'den seçilen 65 yaş ve üzeri 19 katılımcıyla, 12 kadın ve 7 erkek olmak üzere, anket oluşturuldu. Yöntem: İlk olarak, yaşlı yetişkinler mobilite sorunları üzerine bir anket gerçekleştirdi. Daha sonra, yaşlı yetişkinlere mobil hizmet robotlarına karşı tutumlarını ve günlük aktivitelerini değerlendirmek için başka bir üç bölümlü anketi tamamlamaları istendi. Tüm veriler, kendi rapor ettikleri anketler kullanılarak ev ortamlarında toplandı. Bu veriler, Tanımlayıcı Analiz kullanılarak Kişilerarası Döngüsel Modeli oluşturmak için analiz edildi. Yaş ve tutum arasındaki ilişki, Pearson Korelasyonu ile hesaplandı. Bağımsız Örneklem t-Testi, yaşlı yetişkinlerin günlük aktivitelerdeki hizmet robotlarına karşı tutumlarını analiz etmede yardımcı oldu. Bulgular: Mobil hizmet robotlarının görünümünün yaşlı yetişkinlerin tutumlarını etkilediğini, yaşın tutumları etkileyen bir faktör olduğunu, eğitimin ise aksine olmadığını ortaya koydu. Sonuç: Günlük aktivitelerde zorluk yaşayan yaşlı yetişkinlerin daha fazla gizliliğe ihtiyaç duyduğunu ve mobil hizmet robotlarına daha mesafeli olduğunu gösterdi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• SARs
• Mobilite
• Günlük Yaşam Aktiviteleri
• Yaşlı Yetişkinlerin Tutumları
• Mobil Hizmet Robotları

Mobile Service Robots for Older Adults’ Mobility: Investigation of Their Attitude for Daily Assistance in Residential Environments

Öz

Background: As the world's aging population increases, care of older adults has become inevitable. Regarding older adults’ care, mobility is the biggest struggle for older adults, whose bones and muscles deteriorate. The solution is to provide independence in built environments where older adults live and experience during their daily lives. Technological investigations raise the focus on care services within social assistive technologies. With the increasing need for older adults’ care faced by governments, understanding practical solutions is crucial for social robot development. Aim: This research aims to examine the impact of the appearance of mobile service robots, explore changes in older adults’ attitudes, and assess the potential mediating factors in the relationships between age and education. Another objective is to analyze the mobility tasks for daily life activities on the attitude of older adults towards service robots. Method: A survey design was created, with a sample of 19 from Antalya and Kocaeli, aged over 65, divided into 12 women and 7 men. First, older adults conducted a survey to elaborate on their mobility problems. Later, older adults were asked to complete another three-part survey to assess their attitudes toward mobile service robots and their daily activities. All data were collected by using self-reported questionnaires in their residential environment. These data were analyzed through descriptive analysis to create Interpersonal Circumplex. The relation between age and attitude was calculated through the Pearson Correlation. Independent Samples t-Test explored older adults’ attitudes toward service robots in daily activities. Findings: The findings revealed that the mobile service robots’ appearance affected the older adults’ attitudes, whereas age was the mediator that impacted older adults’ attitudes, unlike education. Results: Moreover, the results demonstrated that older adults having difficulty in daily activities needed more privacy and were more distant from the mobile service robots.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• SARs
• mobile service robots
• mobility
• daily life activity
• older adults’ attitude.

Kaynakça

1. Albert, B., & Tullis, T. (2022). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2018-0-00693-3
2. Alonso, S. G., Hamrioui, S., De La Torre Díez, I., Cruz, E. P., López-Coronado, M., & Franco, M. (2019). Social Robots for People with Aging and Dementia: A Systematic Review of Literature. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, 25(7), 533–540. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2018.0051
3. Asgharian, P., Panchea, A. M., & Ferland, F. (2022). A Review on the Use of Mobile Service Robots in Elderly Care. Robotics, 11(6), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics11060127 Atoyebi, O. A., Labbé, D., Prescott, M., Mahmood, A., Routhier, F., Miller, W. R., & Mortenson, W. B. (2019). Mobility Challenges Among Older Adult Mobility Device Users. Current Geriatrics Reports, 8(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-019-00295-5
4. Bedaf, S., Huijnen, C. a. G. J., Van Den Heuvel, R., & De Witte, L. P. (2017). Robots Supporting Care for Elderly People. CRC Press EBooks, 309–332. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315368788-9 Bishop, A. J., Sheng, W., Carlson, B. W., & Jones, N. F. (2023). The Evolution and Rise of Robotic Health Assistants: The New Human-Machine Frontier of Geriatric Home Care. Springer EBooks, pp. 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20970-3_6
5. Broadbent, E., Stafford, R. Q., & MacDonald, B. A. (2009). Acceptance of Healthcare Robots for the Older Population: Review and Future Directions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(4), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0030-6
6. Bulgaro, A., Liberman-Pincu, E., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2022). Bridging the gap: Generating a design space model of Socially Assistive Robots (SARs) for Older Adults using Participatory Design (PD). ArXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2206.10990
7. Canal, G., Alenyà, G., Torras, C. (2016). Personalization Framework for Adaptive Robotic Feeding Assistance. In: Agah, A., Cabibihan, JJ., Howard, A., Salichs, M., He, H. (eds) Social Robotics. ICSR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9979. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_3
8. Caine, K., Sabanovic, S., & Carter, M. E. (2012). The effect of monitoring by cameras and robots on the privacy enhancing behaviors of older adults. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157807 Chen, N., Song, J., & Li, B. (2019). Providing Aging Adults Social Robots’ Companionship in Home-Based Elder Care. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2019, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2726837

9. Christoforou, E. G., Avgousti, S., Ramdani, N., Novales, C., & Panayides, A. S. (2020). The Upcoming Role for Nursing and Assistive Robotics: Opportunities and Challenges Ahead. Frontiers in Digital Health, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2020.585656
10. Christoforou, E. G., Panayides, A. S., Avgousti, S., Masouras, P., & Pattichis, C. S. (2019). An Overview of Assistive Robotics and Technologies for Elderly Care. IFMBE Proceedings, 971–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31635-8_118
11. Coco, K., Kangasniemi, M., & Rantanen, T. (2018). Care Personnel’s Attitudes and Fears Toward Care Robots in Elderly Care: A Comparison of Data from the Care Personnel in Finland and Japan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50(6), 634–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12435
12. Cooper, S., Di Fava, A., Vivas, C., Marchionni, L., & Ferro, F. (2020). ARI: the Social Assistive Robot and Companion. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication. https://doi.org/10.1109/ro-man47096.2020.9223470
13. Cunningham, C., Sullivan, R. J., Caserotti, P., & Tully, M. A. (2020). Consequences of physical inactivity in older adults: A systematic review of reviews and meta‐analyses. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 30(5), 816–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13616
14. Damholdt, M. F., Nørskov, M., Yamazaki, R., Hakli, R., Hansen, C. V., Vestergaard, C., & Seibt, J. (2015). Attitudinal Change in Elderly Citizens Toward Social Robots: The Role of Personality Traits and Beliefs About Robot Functionality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01701
15. Erdem, M., & Emel, F. H. (2004). Yaşlılarda Mobiliye Düzeyi VE Düşme Korkusu. DergiPark (Istanbul University). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/29212
16. Erebak, S., & Turgut, T. (2018). Negative attitudes toward robots scale: validity and reliability of Turkish version. Toros Üniversitesi İİSBF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(9), 407-418. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iisbf/issue/41627/486895
17. Fiorini, L., Tabeau, K., D’Onofrio, G., Coviello, L., De Mul, M., Sancarlo, D., Fabbricotti, I., & Cavallo, F. R. (2020). Co-creation of an assistive robot for independent living: lessons learned on robot design. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (Ijidem), 14(2), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00641-z
18. Fischinger, D., Einramhof, P., Papoutsakis, K. E., Wohlkinger, W., Mayer, P., Panek, P., Hofmann, S. G., Koertner, T., Weiss, A., Argyros, A. A., & Vincze, M. (2016). Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.029
19. Funakoshi, K., Kobayashi, K., Nakano, M., Yamada, S., Kitamura, Y., & Tsujino, H. (2008). Smoothing human-robot speech interactions by using a blinking-light as subtle expression. International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. https://doi.org/10.1145/1452392.1452452
20. Graf, B., Reiser, U., Hägele, M., Mauz, K., & Klein, P. G. (2009). Robotic Home Assistant Care-O-bot® 3 Product Vision and Innovation Platform. Springer EBooks, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02577-8_34
21. Huang, T., & Liu, H. (2019). Acceptability of Robots to Assist the Elderly by Future Designers: A Case of Guangdong Ocean University Industrial Design Students. Sustainability, 11(15), 4139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154139
22. Ihamäki, P., & Heljakka, K. (2021). Robot Pets as “Serious Toys”- Activating Social and Emotional Experiences of Elderly People. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10175-z
23. Jin, M., & Choi, H. (2022). Caregiver Views on Prospective Use of Robotic Care in Helping Children Adapt to Hospitalization. Healthcare, 10(10), 1925. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10101925
24. Kang, H. S., Koh, I. S., Makimoto, K., & Yamakawa, M. (2023). Nurses’ perception towards care robots and their work experience with socially assistive technology during COVID-19: A qualitative study. Geriatric Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.01.025
25. Kittmann, R., Fröhlich, T., Schäfer, J., Reiser, U., Weißhardt, F., & Haug, A. (2015). Let me Introduce Myself: I am Care-O-bot 4, a Gentleman Robot. De Gruyter EBooks, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110443929-024
26. Kompairobotics. (2020, March 24). Kompai the Robot - Kompai Robotics - Robosoft Solutions. KOMPAÏ Robotics. https://kompairobotics.com/robot-kompai/
27. Kumar, E. R., Sachin, P., Vignesh, B. P., & Ahmed, M. Z. (2017). Architecture for IOT based geriatric care fall detection and prevention. In International Conference Intelligent Computing and Control Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccons.2017.8250636
28. Kyrarini, M., Lygerakis, F., Rajavenkatanarayanan, A., Sevastopoulos, C., Nambiappan, H. R., Chaitanya, K. K., Babu, A. N., Mathew, J., & Makedon, F. (2021). A Survey of Robots in Healthcare. Technologies (Basel), 9(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9010008
29. Lehmann, S., Ruf, E., & Misoch, S. (2020). Emotions and Attitudes of Older Adults Toward Robots of Different Appearances and in Different Situations. In Springer eBooks (pp. 21–43). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70807-8_2
30. Liu, Y., & Liu, G. (2009). Track--Stair Interaction Analysis and Online Tipover Prediction for a Self-Reconfigurable Tracked Mobile Robot Climbing Stairs. IEEE-ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 14(5), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmech.2009.2005635
31. Mahdi, H., Akgun, S. A., Saleh, S., & Dautenhahn, K. (2022). A survey on the design and evolution of social robots — Past, present and future. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 156, 104193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2022.104193
32. Mahoney, F. I. (1965). Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14(2), 61-65.
33. Maresova, P., Javanmardi, E., Baraković, S., Husic, J. B., Tomsone, S., Krejcar, O., & Kuca, K. (2019). Consequences of chronic diseases and other limitations associated with old age – a scoping review. BMC Public Health, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7762-5
34. Mendez, L. M., Schrooten, M. G. S., Loutfi, A., & Mozos, O. M. (2022). Age-Related Differences in the Perception of Robotic Referential Gaze in Human-Robot Interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00926-6
35. Moyle, W. (2019). The promise of technology in the future of dementia care. Nature Reviews Neurology, 15(6), 353–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-019-0188-y Nolan, J., Remilton, L., & Green, M. (2008). The Reliability and Validity of the Elderly Mobility Scale in the Acute Hospital Setting. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-580x/2008.1213
36. Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., & Kato, K. (2006, November 13). Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nom Oh, S., Chung, J. H., & Ju, D. Y. (2019). Understanding the Preference of the Elderly for Companion Robot Design. In Springer eBooks (pp. 92–103). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20467-9_9
37. Pedersen, I., Reid, S., & Aspevig, K. (2018). Developing social robots for aging populations: A literature review of recent academic sources. Sociology Compass, 12(6), e12585. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12585
38. Persson, M., Redmalm, D., & Iversen, C. (2021). Caregivers’ use of robots and their effect on work environment – a scoping review. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 40(3), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2021.2000554
39. Plöthner, M., Schmidt, K., De Jong, L., Zeidler, J., & Damm, K. (2019). Needs and preferences of informal caregivers regarding outpatient care for the elderly: a systematic literature review. BMC Geriatrics, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1068-4
40. Riken. The strong robot with a gentle touch. (2015, July 23). (n.d.). https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/pr/2015/20150223_2/
41. Romero-Garcés, A., Bandera, J., Marfil, R., González-García, M., & Bandera, A. (2022). CLARA: Building a Socially Assistive Robot to Interact with Elderly People. Designs, 6(6), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs6060125
42. Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, U., Akram, M., & Raman, R. (2021). A new health care system enabled by machine intelligence: Elderly people’s trust or losing self-control. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, p. 162, 120334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120334
43. Shibata, T., & Wada, K. (2011). Robot Therapy: A New Approach for Mental Healthcare of the Elderly – A Mini-Review. Gerontology, 57(4), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1159/000319015
44. Shishehgar, M., Kerr, D., & Blake, J. (2018). A systematic review of research into how robotic technology can help older people. Smart Health, 7–8, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smhl.2018.03.002
45. Soubra, R., Chkeir, A., & Novella, J. L. (2019). A Systematic Review of Thirty-One Assessment Tests to Evaluate Mobility in Older Adults. BioMed Research International, 2019, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1354362
46. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2022). Population and Housing Census 2021, (Report No. 45866). Retrieved from https://www.tuik.gov.tr/
47. Van Der Plas, A., Smits, M., & Wehrmann, C. (2010). Beyond Speculative Robot Ethics: A Vision Assessment Study on the Future of the Robotic Caretaker. Accountability in Research, 17(6), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2010.524078
48. Wiederhold, B. K. (2017). Robotic Technology Remains a Necessary Part of Healthcare’s Future Editorial. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(9), 511–512. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.29083.bkw
49. Wu, R., Wang, J., Chen, W., & Wang, P. (2021). Design of a transfer robot for the assistance of the elderly and disabled. Advanced Robotics, 35(3–4), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2020.1819875
50. Wu, Y., Wrobel, J., Cornuet, M., Kerhervé, H., Damnée, S., & Rigaud, A. (2014). Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human– robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 801. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s56435
51. Yan, Q., Huang, J., Tao, C., Chen, X., & Xu, W. (2020). Intelligent mobile walking-aids: perception, control, and safety. Advanced Robotics, 34(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2019.1653225
52. Yi, Y., Ding, L., Wen, H., Wu, J., Makimoto, K., & Liao, X. (2020, May 8). Is Barthel Index Suitable for Assessing Activities of Daily Living in Patients With Dementia? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00282
53. Yu, M. S. W., Chan, C. C. H., & Tsim, R. K. M. (2007, November 27). Usefulness of the Elderly Mobility Scale for classifying residential placements. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(12), 1114–1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215507080789
54. Zafrani, O., Nimrod, G., & Edan, Y. (2023). Between fear and trust: Older adults’ evaluation of socially assistive robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 171, 102981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102981
55. Zöllick, J. C., Rössle, S., Kluy, L., Kuhlmey, A., & Blüher, S. (2022). Potentials and challenges of social robots in relationships with older people: a rapid review of current debates. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 1-7.
56. Zsiga, K., Tóth, A., Pilissy, T., Péter, O., Dénes, Z., & Fazekas, G. (2018). Evaluation of a companion robot based on field tests with single older adults in their homes. Assistive Technology, 30(5), 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2017.1322158