Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBradwell, Hannah
dc.contributor.authorAguiar Noury, GE
dc.contributor.authorEdwards, KJ
dc.contributor.authorWinnington, R
dc.contributor.authorThill, S
dc.contributor.authorJones, Ray
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-08T16:57:21Z
dc.date.available2022-02-08T16:57:21Z
dc.date.issued2021-09
dc.identifier.issn2211-8837
dc.identifier.issn2211-8845
dc.identifier.other100544
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/18719
dc.description.abstract

Objectives: Socially assistive robots (SAR) may have an important role in health and social care. Design of such SAR can be informed through detailed studies with end-users, but we also need shared understanding of SAR between developers and those influencing policy. We aimed to explore the acceptability of using SAR across a broad range of stakeholders who could influence policy and identify design considerations for developers. Methods: We gave live demonstrations of a range of SAR rather than passive materials such as pictures, and used an acceptability model (Almere Model) as framework for analysis. Eight exhibitions involved live demonstrations and interaction with two robot animals (Paro and Miro), a humanoid (Pepper) and function-oriented telepresence robot (Padbot). 223 health and social care professionals, service users and small companies participated. Unstructured free interactions with robots were video recorded, transcribed, and content analysed. Themes were mapped onto the Almere Model of acceptability where components and design recommendations were deduced. Results: Three-quarters of attendees interacted with robots (n=167). Practical design changes identified were: (i) improved mobility for uneven floors and carpets, (ii) improved voice recognition and accent interpretation, (iii) better ease of use (mainly Pepper), (iv) enhanced robustness and battery life/autonomous charging, (v) soft, friendly aesthetics, (vi) anthropomorphic or biomorphic design (non-robotic) for friendliness and social presence, (vii) androgynous appearance. Conclusion: Health and social care stakeholders are open to use of SAR and see potential in this field, however, practical issues such as robustness, battery life, voice/accent recognition and mobility need to be addressed. Public Interest Summary: Robots that interact with people in health and care settings may have an important role in improving wellbeing. Detailed studies with end-users should inform SAR design for specific settings, however policy makers and robot developers must also share understanding of suitable design, for robots to be developed appropriate for health and care contexts. We gave live demonstrations of two robot animals (Paro and Miro), a humanoid (Pepper) and telepresence robot (Padbot) at eight events with 223 health and social care professionals, service users and small companies. Interactions with the robots were video recorded and used to assess their acceptability. Participants saw potential for robot use but identified practical concerns. These were: (i) improved mobility for uneven floors and carpets, (ii) improved voice recognition and accent interpretation, (iii) better ease of use (mainly Pepper), (iv) enhanced robustness and battery life/autonomous charging, (v) soft, friendly aesthetics, (vi) anthropomorphic or biomorphic design (non-robotic) for friendliness and social presence, (vii) androgynous appearance.

dc.format.extent100544-100544
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.subjectSocial robots
dc.subjectCompanion robots
dc.subjectAcceptability
dc.subjectHealthcare
dc.subjectSocial care
dc.subjectTechnology acceptance
dc.titleDesign recommendations for socially assistive robots for health and social care based on a large scale analysis of stakeholder positions
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000696997100006&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue3
plymouth.volume10
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalHealth Policy and Technology
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.hlpt.2021.100544
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-06-15
dc.rights.embargodate2022-7-2
dc.identifier.eissn2211-8845
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.hlpt.2021.100544
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-09
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


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 
Atmire NV