Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCavallo, Fen
dc.contributor.authorEsposito, Ren
dc.contributor.authorLimosani, Ren
dc.contributor.authorManzi, Aen
dc.contributor.authorBevilacqua, Ren
dc.contributor.authorFelici, Een
dc.contributor.authorDi Nuovo, Aen
dc.contributor.authorCangelosi, Aen
dc.contributor.authorLattanzio, Fen
dc.contributor.authorDario, Pen
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-20T20:36:34Z
dc.date.available2018-09-20T20:36:34Z
dc.date.issued2018-09-21en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/12404
dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: In Europe, the population of older people is increasing rapidly. Many older people prefer to remain in their homes but living alone could be a risk for their safety. In this context, robotics and other emerging technologies are increasingly proposed as potential solutions to this societal concern. However, one-third of all assistive technologies are abandoned within one year of use because the end users do not accept them. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the acceptance of the Robot-Era system, which provides robotic services to permit older people to remain in their homes. METHODS: Six robotic services were tested by 35 older users. The experiments were conducted in three different environments: private home, condominium, and outdoor sites. The appearance questionnaire was developed to collect the users' first impressions about the Robot-Era system, whereas the acceptance was evaluated through a questionnaire developed ad hoc for Robot-Era. RESULTS: A total of 45 older users were recruited. The people were grouped in two samples of 35 participants, according to their availability. Participants had a positive impression of Robot-Era robots, as reflected by the mean score of 73.04 (SD 11.80) for DORO's (domestic robot) appearance, 76.85 (SD 12.01) for CORO (condominium robot), and 75.93 (SD 11.67) for ORO (outdoor robot). Men gave ORO's appearance an overall score higher than women (P=.02). Moreover, participants younger than 75 years understood more readily the functionalities of Robot-Era robots compared to older people (P=.007 for DORO, P=.001 for CORO, and P=.046 for ORO). For the ad hoc questionnaire, the mean overall score was higher than 80 out of 100 points for all Robot-Era services. Older persons with a high educational level gave Robot-Era services a higher score than those with a low level of education (shopping: P=.04; garbage: P=.047; reminding: P=.04; indoor walking support: P=.006; outdoor walking support: P=.03). A higher score was given by male older adults for shopping (P=.02), indoor walking support (P=.02), and outdoor walking support (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the feedback given by the end users, the Robot-Era system has the potential to be developed as a socially acceptable and believable provider of robotic services to facilitate older people to live independently in their homes.

en
dc.format.extente264 - ?en
dc.languageengen
dc.language.isoengen
dc.subjectacceptability modelsen
dc.subjectactive and healthy agingen
dc.subjectsocial roboticsen
dc.subjectAgeden
dc.subjectAged, 80 and overen
dc.subjectFemaleen
dc.subjectHumansen
dc.subjectLongevityen
dc.subjectMaleen
dc.subjectPatient Acceptance of Health Careen
dc.subjectPersonal Satisfactionen
dc.subjectRoboticsen
dc.subjectSelf-Help Devicesen
dc.subjectSurveys and Questionnairesen
dc.titleRobotic Services Acceptance in Smart Environments With Older Adults: User Satisfaction and Acceptability Study.en
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30249588en
plymouth.issue9en
plymouth.volume20en
plymouth.publication-statusPublished onlineen
plymouth.journalJ Med Internet Resen
dc.identifier.doi10.2196/jmir.9460en
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Science and Engineering
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Science and Engineering/School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Marine Institute
dc.publisher.placeCanadaen
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-06-24en
dc.rights.embargodate9999-12-31en
dc.identifier.eissn1438-8871en
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot knownen
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.2196/jmir.9460en
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-09-21en
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
@mire NV