User-Centered Design of Companion Robot Pets Involving Care Home Resident-Robot Interactions and Focus Groups With Residents, Staff, and Family: Qualitative Study.
Joy for All
Paro
acceptability
care homes
companion robots
dementia
engagement
gerontology
older adults
social care
social robots
user-centered design
Journal
JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies
ISSN: 2369-2529
Titre abrégé: JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101703412
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2021
01 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
14
05
2021
accepted:
27
09
2021
revised:
04
08
2021
entrez:
1
11
2021
pubmed:
2
11
2021
medline:
2
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Globally, pressure is increasing on health and social care resources due to the aging population and growing prevalence of dementia. Companion robots, such as Paro, demonstrate strong potential for helping reduce this pressure through reported benefits including reduced agitation, depression, loneliness, care provider burden, and medication use. However, we previously identified that user-centered design of robot pets is both essential and understudied. We observed that commonly used robot pets are poorly matched to end-user requirements, and that end users and developers of robot pets differ significantly in their perception of appropriate design. This may explain some of the contradictory outcome research and variance in results for robot pets, such as Paro. In response to the literature gap, we aimed to provide user-centered insights into the design of robot pets from key stakeholders to inform future robot development and the choice of robots for real-world implementation and research. We focused on understanding user requirements. We conducted a qualitative study with 65 participants from 5 care homes (26 care home residents, 29 staff members. and 10 family members). Care home residents formed groups of between 3 and 4 individuals and experienced free interactions with a range of 8 companion robots and toys, including Paro and more affordable alternatives. The robots provided had a range of esthetics, shell types, interactivity levels, and designs for comparison. Care staff and family members observed the interactions. All participants then engaged in focus groups within their stakeholder category to discuss preferences and user requirements in companion robot design. Both free interactions and focus groups were video and audio recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic analysis. Care home residents, family members, and staff were open and accepting of the use of companion robot pets, with the majority suggesting that they would keep a device for themselves or the residents. The most preferred device was the Joy for All cat, followed by the Joy for All dog. In discussions, the preferred design features included familiar animal embodiment (domestic pet), soft fur, interactivity, big appealing eyes, simulated breathing, and movements. Unfamiliar devices were more often seen as toy-like and suitable for children, producing some negative responses. This work provides important and user-centered insights into future robot designs for care home residents by means of a comprehensive comparison with key stakeholders. This work strongly supports the use of familiar embodiment in future robot pet designs, with domestic cat and dog morphologies appearing most acceptable. The results have implications for future robot designs and the selection of robot pets for both research and real-world implementations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Globally, pressure is increasing on health and social care resources due to the aging population and growing prevalence of dementia. Companion robots, such as Paro, demonstrate strong potential for helping reduce this pressure through reported benefits including reduced agitation, depression, loneliness, care provider burden, and medication use. However, we previously identified that user-centered design of robot pets is both essential and understudied. We observed that commonly used robot pets are poorly matched to end-user requirements, and that end users and developers of robot pets differ significantly in their perception of appropriate design. This may explain some of the contradictory outcome research and variance in results for robot pets, such as Paro.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
In response to the literature gap, we aimed to provide user-centered insights into the design of robot pets from key stakeholders to inform future robot development and the choice of robots for real-world implementation and research. We focused on understanding user requirements.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a qualitative study with 65 participants from 5 care homes (26 care home residents, 29 staff members. and 10 family members). Care home residents formed groups of between 3 and 4 individuals and experienced free interactions with a range of 8 companion robots and toys, including Paro and more affordable alternatives. The robots provided had a range of esthetics, shell types, interactivity levels, and designs for comparison. Care staff and family members observed the interactions. All participants then engaged in focus groups within their stakeholder category to discuss preferences and user requirements in companion robot design. Both free interactions and focus groups were video and audio recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Care home residents, family members, and staff were open and accepting of the use of companion robot pets, with the majority suggesting that they would keep a device for themselves or the residents. The most preferred device was the Joy for All cat, followed by the Joy for All dog. In discussions, the preferred design features included familiar animal embodiment (domestic pet), soft fur, interactivity, big appealing eyes, simulated breathing, and movements. Unfamiliar devices were more often seen as toy-like and suitable for children, producing some negative responses.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This work provides important and user-centered insights into future robot designs for care home residents by means of a comprehensive comparison with key stakeholders. This work strongly supports the use of familiar embodiment in future robot pet designs, with domestic cat and dog morphologies appearing most acceptable. The results have implications for future robot designs and the selection of robot pets for both research and real-world implementations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34723825
pii: v8i4e30337
doi: 10.2196/30337
pmc: PMC8593804
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e30337Informations de copyright
©Hannah Louise Bradwell, Katie Edwards, Deborah Shenton, Rhona Winnington, Serge Thill, Ray B Jones. Originally published in JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology (https://rehab.jmir.org), 01.11.2021.
Références
Exp Brain Res. 2010 Jul;204(3):305-14
pubmed: 19771420
Br J Psychol. 1962 Aug;53:307-20
pubmed: 13892029
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Jan;14(1):34-40
pubmed: 23098418
Int Psychogeriatr. 2008 Oct;20(5):941-51
pubmed: 18416876
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 26;9(9):e032468
pubmed: 31558461
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2010 Feb;25(1):37-45
pubmed: 19075298
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Sep 1;18(9):766-773
pubmed: 28780395
Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2015 Dec;29(6):377-82
pubmed: 26577550
Int J Older People Nurs. 2019 Sep;14(3):e12239
pubmed: 31070870
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018 Aug;13(6):592-599
pubmed: 28758532
Psychogeriatrics. 2016 Sep;16(5):289-97
pubmed: 26510632
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 Oct 1;16(10):867-73
pubmed: 26096582
Aging Ment Health. 2019 Mar;23(3):329-336
pubmed: 29282989
Gerontologist. 2019 Jan 9;59(1):e37-e51
pubmed: 29897445
BMC Geriatr. 2020 Jul 14;20(1):244
pubmed: 32664904
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 12;8(2):e018815
pubmed: 29440212
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2004 Mar-Apr;19(2):111-6
pubmed: 15106392
Inform Prim Care. 2014;21(4):161-70
pubmed: 25479346
PeerJ. 2015 Oct 06;3:e1297
pubmed: 26557429
Gerontology. 2011;57(4):378-86
pubmed: 20639620
Scand J Occup Ther. 2006 Jun;13(2):101-12
pubmed: 16856467
Ment Health Clin. 2018 Mar 23;7(6):246-254
pubmed: 29955530
Contemp Nurse. 2018 Feb;54(1):1-3
pubmed: 29409386
JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 May;72(5):438-45
pubmed: 25786075
Aging Ment Health. 2018 Mar;22(3):330-335
pubmed: 27967207
J Alzheimers Dis. 2016 Nov 19;55(2):569-574
pubmed: 27716673
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 26;15(8):e0237069
pubmed: 32845891
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Oct 1;18(10):871-878
pubmed: 28668664
JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Feb 12;8(1):e25340
pubmed: 33497349
Lancet. 2015 Feb 14;385(9968):640-648
pubmed: 25468152
Gerontologist. 2016 Apr;56 Suppl 2:S293-302
pubmed: 26994268
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Sep;14(9):661-7
pubmed: 23545466
Front Aging Neurosci. 2015 Jul 23;7:141
pubmed: 26257646
Australas J Ageing. 2015 Mar;34(1):27-32
pubmed: 24373064
BMC Geriatr. 2019 Aug 23;19(1):232
pubmed: 31443636