Impacts of a Care Robotics Project on Finnish Home Care Workers’ Attitudes towards Robots
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Project Activities
2.2. The Concept of Attitude
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Aim and Hypothesis
3.2. Settings
3.3. Sample
3.4. Data Collection
3.5. Measures
3.6. Analysis
3.7. Ethical Issues
4. Results
4.1. Respondents
4.2. Reliability of Measures
4.3. Analysis of the Control Group
4.4. Analysis of Differences in Attitudes
5. Discussion
5.1. Findings
5.2. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Statements Included in the Measures
- NARS 1
- I would feel uneasy if I was given a job where I had to use robots.
- I would feel nervous operating a robot in front of other people.
- I would hate the idea that robots or artificial intelligences were making judgements about things.
- I would feel very nervous just standing in front of a robot.
- NARS 2
- Something bad might happen if robots developed into living beings.
- I feel that if I depend on robots too much, something bad might happen.
- I am concerned that robots would be a bad influence on children.
- I feel that in the future society will be dominated by robots.
- NARS 3
- I would feel uneasy if robots really had emotions.
- I would feel relaxed talking with robots.1)
- If robots had emotions I would be able to make friends with them.1)
- I feel comforted being with robots that have emotions.1)
- 1) inverse item
- Robots as helpers in practical home care
- A care robot can help an older person with washing, dressing and using the toilet.
- A care robot can help an older person move (e.g., moving from bed to chair).
- A care robot can assist an older person in light household work (e.g., cooking, making their bed, doing the dishes, using the dishwasher).
- A care robot can assist an older person in heavy household work (cleaning the windows, lifting).
- Robots as promoters of safety
- A care robot can help an older person communicate with relatives and friends.
- A care robot can help observing an older person’s state of health (i.e., remote communication with doctor or nurse, real-time conveying of health information).
- A care robot can help with medication (e.g., giving medicine, recognising medicine, observing medicine use).
- A care robot can contribute to the safety of an older person living at home (e.g., by informing relatives and/or health care workers of a sudden change in the state of health).
- Robots as guides and prompters
- A care robot can remind an older person to take their medicine, of week days, of meetings,
- A care robot can guide an older person with the use of phone or bank-related issues.
- A care robot can guide an older person in physical exercise.
References
- Christensen, K.; Doblhammer, G.; Rau, R.; Vaupel, J.W. Ageing populations: The challenges ahead. Lancet 2009, 374, 1196–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Health Organization (WHO). World Report on Ageing and Health; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Official Statistics Finland. Available online: https://www.stat.fi/til/vaenn/2018/vaenn_2018_2018-11-16_tau_001_fi.html (accessed on 29 April 2020).
- Prince, M.; Wu, F.; Guo, Y.; Gutierrez-Robledo, L.; O’Donnel, M.; Sullivan, R.; Yusuf, S. The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and practice. Lancet 2015, 385, 549–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Hoshi, T.; Nakayama, N.; Wang, S.; Kong, F. The effects of socio-economic status and physical health on the long-term care needs of Japanese urban elderly: A chronological study. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2013, 18, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guralnik, J.; LaCroix, A.; Branch, L.; Kasi, S.; Wallace, R. Morbidity and disability in older persons in the years prior to death. Am. J. Public Health 1991, 81, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Available online: https://stm.fi/en/older-people-services (accessed on 16 April 2020).
- Sharkey, A. Robots and human dignity: A consideration of the effects of robot care on the dignity of older people. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2014, 16, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Turja, T.; Rantanen, T.; Oksanen, A. Robot use self-efficacy in healthcare work (RUSH): Development and validation of a new measure. AI Soc. 2019, 34, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broadbent, E.; Kerse, N.; Peri, K.; Robinson, H.; Jayawardena, C.; Kuo, T.; Datta, C.; Stafford, R.; Butler, H.; Jawalkar, P.; et al. Benefits and problems of health-care robots in aged care settings: A comparison trial. Australas. J. Ageing 2016, 35, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rantanen, T.; Lehto, P.; Vuorinen, P.; Coco, K. Attitudes towards care robots among Finnish home care personnel - a comparison of two approaches. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2018, 32, 772–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparrow, R.; Sparrow, L. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Mach. 2006, 16, 41–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharkey, A.; Sharkey, N. Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2012, 14, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Wynsberghe, A. Designing robots for care: Care centered value-sensitive design. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2013, 19, 407–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Alaiad, A.; Zhou, L. The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2014, 83, 825–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bartneck, C.; Nomura, T.; Kanda, T.; Suzuki, T.; Kennsuke, K. A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. In Proceedings of the HCI International, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 22–27 July 2005; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Nomura, T.; Kanda, T.; Suzuki, T. Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI Soc. 2006, 20, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broadbent, E.; Tamagawa, R.; Patience, A.; Knock, B.; Kerse, N.; Day, K.; MacDonald, B. Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australas. J. Aging 2012, 31, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syrdal, D.S.; Dautenhahn, K.; Koay, K.L.; Walters, M.L. The negative attitudes towards robots scale and reactions to robot behaviour in a live human–robot interaction study. In Adaptive and Emergent Behaviour and Complex Systems; Proceedings of the 23rd Convention of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, AISB, Edinburgh, UK, 6–9 April 2009; Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour: Bath, UK, 2009; pp. 109–115. [Google Scholar]
- Mast, M.; Burmester, M.; Kruger, K.; Fatikow, S.; Arbeiter, G.; Graf, B.; Kronreif, G.; Pigini, L.; Facal, D.; Qiu, R. User-centered design of a dynamic-autonomy remote interaction concept for manipulation-capable robots to assist elderly people in the home. J. Hum. Robot. Interact. 2012, 1, 96–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haring, K.S.; Mougenot, C.; Ono, F.; Watanabe, K. Cultural differences in perception and attitude towards robots. Int. J. Affect. Eng. 2014, 13, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nomura, T.; Kanda, T. Who expect rapport with robots? A survey-based study for analysis of people’s expectation. Tech. Rep. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Backonja, U.; Hall, A.K.; Painter, I.; Kneale, L.; Lazar, A.; Cakmak, M.; Thompson, H.J.; Demiris, G. Comfort and attitudes towards robots among young, middle-aged, and older adults: A cross-sectional study. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2018, 50, 623–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papadopoulos, I.; Koulouglioti, C. The influence of culture on attitudes towards humanoid and animal-like robots: An integrative review. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2018, 50, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erebak, S.; Turgut, T. Caregivers’ attitudes toward potential robot coworkers in elder care. Cogn. Technol. Work 2019, 21, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-C.; Jones, C.; Moyle, W. Social robots for depression in older adults: A systematic review. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2018, 50, 612–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Obayashi, K.; Kodate, N.; Masuyama, S. Enhancing older people’s activity and participation with socially assistive robots: A multicentre quasiexperimental study using the ICF framework. Adv. Robot. 2018, 32, 1207–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeersch, P.; Sampsel, D.D.; Kleman, C. Acceptability and usability of a telepresence robot for geriatric primary care: A pilot. Geriatr. Nurs. 2015, 36, 234–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bakas, T.; Sampsel, D.; Israel, J.; Chamnikar, A.; Ellard, A.; Clark, J.G.; Ulrich, M.G.; Vanderelst, D. Satisfaction and technology evaluation of a telehealth robotic program to optimize healthy independent living for older adults. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2018, 50, 666–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mordoch, E.; Osterreicher, A.; Guse, L.; Roger, K.; Thompson, G. Use of social commitment robots in the elderly people with dementia: A literature review. Maturitas 2013, 74, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ezer, N.; Fisk, A.D.; Rogers, W.A. Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. Univers. Access Hum. Comput. Interact. 2009, 56, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Flandorfer, P. Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: The importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. Int. J. Popul. Res. 2012, 2012, 829835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: Fort Worth, TX, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Public attitudes towards robots. In Special Eurobarometer 382; Directorate-General for Communication. European Commission: Bryssel, Belgium, 2012; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_382_en.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2020).
- Scopelliti, M.; Giuliani, M.V.; Fornara, F. Robots in a domestic setting: A psychological approach. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 2005, 4, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, H.; Rabindran, J.M.; Broadbent, E.; Lee, Y.I.; Kerse, N.; Stafford, R.M.Q.; MacDonald, B.A. Age and gender factors in user acceptance of healthcare robots. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Toyama, Japan, 27 September–2 October 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Y.-H.; Cristancho-Lacroix, V.; Fassert, C.; Faucounau, V.; de Rotrou, J.; Rigaud, A.-S. The attitudes and perceptions of older adults with mild cognitive impairment toward an assistive robot. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2016, 35, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. Responsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for Handling Allegations of Misconduct in Finland. Guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2012. Available online: http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2020).
- WMA. Declaration of Helsinki-Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2018. Available online: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ (accessed on 29 April 2020).
- Bouwhuis, D.G. Current use and possibilities of robots in care. Gerontechnology 2016, 15, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vichitkraivin, P.; Naenna, T. The Simulation model of the resistance factors affecting the adoption of healthcare robot technology in tertiary care center of thailand. In World Symposium on Smart Materials and Applications (WSSMA 2019); IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 649, p. 012023. [Google Scholar]
- Bedaf, S.; Gelderblom, G.J.; Syrdal, D.S.; Lehman, H.; Michel, H.; Hewson, D.; Amirabdollahian, F.; Dautenhahn, K.; deWitte, L. Which activities threaten independent living of elderly when becoming problematic: Inspiration for meaningful service robot functionality. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Activity | Time | Participants | Actions in Workshops/Sessions | Robots Used 1 | Data Collected |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Face validation workshop | autumn 2015 | 35 home care workers | 3 sessions and focus group interviews (total of 8 groups) | No robots | focus groups |
1st robotics workshop | spring 2016 | 35 home care workers | 3 sessions (total of 8 groups) | Double 2 1 | First survey before the robotics workshop |
2nd robotics workshop | late 2016 | 5 elderly and 9 home care workers | one session | Double 2, Paro 2, Omron Lynx 3, Zora 4, Pepper 5 | |
3rd robotics workshop | early 2017 | 12 elderly and 2 home care workers | bingo session, Pepper as a host | Pepper | |
4th robotics workshop | late 2017 | 9 elderly and 4 home care workers | exercise session, Pepper as a host | Pepper | |
Pilot placement | late 2018, 5 weeks duration | unit with 10 elderly | memory stimulation through music and historical trivia, listening the news, an email-based messaging service utilizing face recognition | Pepper | |
Workshop for final measurement | late 2019 | 22 home care workers | presentation of the results of the pilot (2 sessions) | Pepper | Second survey (absent workers completed the survey independently) |
Sample | Time | Group | N | Response Rate | Average Age (Years) | Share of Women | Share of Practical Nurses | Share of Register Nurses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Before intervention | March–May 2016 | Test group | 35 | 87.5% | 43.5 | 94.3% | 62.9% | 20.0% |
Control group | 165 | 15.5% | 43.2 | 93.3% | 57.6% | 23.0% | ||
2. After intervention | November–December 2019 | Test group | 34 | 75.6% | 46.5 | 94.1% | 61.8% | 23.5% |
Control group | 128 | 11.8% | 42.7 | 94.5% | 73.4% | 10.9% |
Variable | Items | Sample | n | Mean | SD | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NARS 1 | 4 | before | 200 | 2.79 | 0.93 | 0.799 |
after | 159 | 2.77 | 0.97 | 0.785 | ||
NARS 2 | 4 | before | 200 | 3.06 | 0.90 | 0.730 |
after | 162 | 3.20 | 0.91 | 0.738 | ||
NARS 3 | 4 | before | 200 | 3.92 | 0.91 | 0.795 |
after | 158 | 3.84 | 0.88 | 0.679 | ||
Robots as helpers in practical home care | 4 | before | 199 | 2.58 | 1.05 | 0.824 |
after | 161 | 2.60 | 1.03 | 0.817 | ||
Robots as promoters of safety | 4 | before | 199 | 3.38 | 1.09 | 0.865 |
after | 160 | 3.53 | 1.03 | 0.844 | ||
Robots as guides and prompters | 3 | before | 199 | 3.78 | 0.97 | 0.817 |
after | 162 | 3.90 | 0.88 | 0.753 |
Location | First Sample (Before Intervention) n = 165 | Second Sample (After Intervention) n = 128 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of Respondents in the Control Group | How the Survey was Completed | Percentage of Respondents in the Control Group | How the Survey Was Completed | |
1 (medium-sized town) | 24.2% | Electronically | 39.8% | Paper form |
2 (City) | 21.8% | Electronically | 20.3% | Electronically |
3 (Small town) | 5.5% | Electronically | 7.8% | Electronically |
4 (medium-sized town) | 47.9% | Paper form | 32.0% | Electronically |
Missing information | 0.6% | 0.0% | ||
Total | 100% | 99.9% |
Variable | df1 | df2 | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
NARS 1 | 3 | 121 | 1.24 | 0.297 |
NARS 2 | 3 | 124 | 1.64 | 0.183 |
NARS 3 | 3 | 121 | 0.49 | 0.688 |
Robots as helpers in practical home care | 3 | 124 | 0.64 | 0.979 |
Robots as promoters of safety | 3 | 123 | 0.08 | 0.970 |
Robots as guides and prompters | 3 | 124 | 0.42 | 0.735 |
Variable | Group | First Sample (Before Intervention) | Second Sample (After Intervention) | Difference | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | Change | t | p | ||
NARS 1 | Test group | 35 | 2.557 | 0.784 | 34 | 2.522 | 0.833 | 0.035 | −0.180 | 0.858 |
Control group | 165 | 2.842 | 0.958 | 125 | 2.834 | 0.992 | −0.008 | −0.073 | 0.942 | |
Difference, t(p) | −1.648 (p = 0.101) | −1.679 (p = 0.095) | ||||||||
NARS 2 | Test group | 35 | 2.914 | 0.953 | 34 | 3.250 | 0.776 | 0.336 | 1.602 | 0.114 |
Control group | 165 | 3.091 | 0.884 | 128 | 3.191 | 0.939 | 0.100 | 0.939 | 0.349 | |
Difference, t(p) | −1.059 (p = 0.291) | 0.334 (p = 0.738) | ||||||||
NARS 3 | Test group | 35 | 3.543 | 0.835 | 33 | 3.765 | 0.927 | 0.222 | 1.040 | 0.302 |
Control group | 165 | 3.998 | 0.907 | 125 | 3.866 | 0.873 | −0.132 | −1.252 | 0.212 | |
Difference, t(p) | −2.735 (p = 0.007) | −0.583 (p = 0.561) | ||||||||
Robots as helpers in practical home care | Test group | 34 | 2.772 | 1.120 | 33 | 2.970 | 1.017 | 0.198 | 0.755 | 0.453 |
Control group | 165 | 2.535 | 1.038 | 128 | 2.506 | 1.017 | −0.029 | −0.238 | 0.812 | |
Difference, t(p) | 1.197 (p = 0.233) | 2.336 (p = 0.021) | ||||||||
Robots as promoters of safety | Test group | 34 | 3.353 | 0.962 | 33 | 3.750 | 0.855 | 0.397 | 1.785 | 0.079 |
Control group | 165 | 3.383 | 1.121 | 127 | 3.478 | 1.065 | 0.095 | 0.733 | 0.464 | |
Difference, t(p) | −0.147 (p = 0.883) | 1.355 (p = 0.177) | ||||||||
Robots as guides and prompters | Test group | 35 | 3.971 | 0.729 | 34 | 4.245 | 0.648 | 0.274 | 1.646 | 0.104 |
Control group | 164 | 3.734 | 1.015 | 128 | 3.807 | 0.913 | 0.074 | 0.642 | 0.521 | |
Difference, t(p) | 1.314 (p = 0.190) | 2.623 (p = 0.010) |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rantanen, T.; Leppälahti, T.; Porokuokka, J.; Heikkinen, S. Impacts of a Care Robotics Project on Finnish Home Care Workers’ Attitudes towards Robots. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7176. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197176
Rantanen T, Leppälahti T, Porokuokka J, Heikkinen S. Impacts of a Care Robotics Project on Finnish Home Care Workers’ Attitudes towards Robots. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(19):7176. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197176
Chicago/Turabian StyleRantanen, Teemu, Teppo Leppälahti, Jaakko Porokuokka, and Sari Heikkinen. 2020. "Impacts of a Care Robotics Project on Finnish Home Care Workers’ Attitudes towards Robots" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19: 7176. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197176