The purpose of this study was to deeply understand older adults’ acceptance of socially assistive robots and their influencing factors and to compare the strength of the correlation between each influencing factor variable and the acceptance. The literature search was performed in five databases from their inception to January 17, 2023. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 16.0 software. Thirteen papers were included in this study. The mean value of acceptability after using the inverse variance method was 3.68. Education level is strongly related to technology acceptance; perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, technology experience, technology attitude, perceived hedonism, and convenience are moderately related; anxiety is only weakly related.
AbdiJ.Al-HindawiA.NgT.VizcaychipiM. P. (2018). Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open, 8(2), Article e018815. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815
2.
AndtfolkM.NyholmL.EideH.RauhalaA.FagerströmL. (2021). Attitudes toward the use of humanoid robots in healthcare—a cross-sectional study. AI & Society, 37(4), 1739–1748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01271-4
3.
BackonjaU.HallA. K.PainterI.KnealeL.LazarA.CakmakM.ThompsonH. J.DemirisG.DemirisG. (2018). Comfort and attitudes towards robots among young, middle-aged, and older adults: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Nursing Scholarship: An Official Publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, 50(6), 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12430
4.
BarrettE.BurkeM.WhelanS.SantorelliA.OliveiraB. L.CavalloF.DröesR. M.HopperL.Fawcett-HenesyA.MeilandF. J. M.MountainG.MoyleW.RacitiM.PegmanG.TeareA.SancarloD.RiccardiF.D'OnofrioG.GiulianiF.CaseyD. (2019). Evaluation of a companion robot for individuals with dementia: Quantitative findings of the MARIO Project in an Irish residential care setting. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 45(7), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20190531-01
5.
BevilacquaR.Di RosaM.RiccardiG. R.PelliccioniG.LattanzioF.FeliciE.MargaritiniA.AmabiliG.MaranesiE. (2022). Design and development of a scale for evaluating the acceptance of social robotics for older people: The robot era inventory. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 16, 883106. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2022.883106
6.
CavalloF.EspositoR.LimosaniR.ManziA.BevilacquaR.FeliciE.Di NuovoA.CangelosiA.LattanzioF.DarioP.DarioP. (2018). Robotic services acceptance in smart environments with older adults: User satisfaction and acceptability study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(9), Article e264. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9460
7.
ChenK.ChanA. H. (2014). Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: A senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Ergonomics, 57(5), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.895855
8.
ChangC.ShaoB.LiY.ZhangY. (2022). Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to accept service robots: Based on online reviews of Chinese hotels. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1016579. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1016579
9.
ChenN. (2018). Acceptance of social robots by aging users: Towards a pleasure-oriented view. Cross-Cultural Design. Methods, Tools, and Users: 10th International Conference, CCD 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 10.
10.
ChiuC. J.HsiehS.LiC. W. (2021). Needs and preferences of middle-aged and older adults in Taiwan for companion robots and pets: Survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(6), Article e23471. https://doi.org/10.2196/23471
11.
CohenJ. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
12.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
13.
DossoJ. A.BandariE.MalhotraA.GuerraG. K.HoeyJ.MichaudF.PrescottT. J.RobillardJ. M.RobillardJ. M. (2022). User perspectives on emotionally aligned social robots for older adults and persons living with dementia. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 9, 20556683221108364. https://doi.org/10.1177/20556683221108364
14.
DudekM.BaischS.KnopfM.KollingT. (2020). This isn’t me!”: The role of age-related self- and user images for robot acceptance by elders. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(6), 1173–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00678-1
15.
DwivediY. K.RanaN. P.ChenH.WilliamsM. D. (2011). A meta-analysis of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Governance and sustainability in information systems. Managing the transfer and diffusion of IT: IFIP WG 8.6 international working conference, Hamburg, Germany, September 22-24, 2011. Proceedings.
16.
EzerN.FiskA. D.RogersW. A. (2009). Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, 2009(5615), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_5
17.
FioriniL.De MulM.FabbricottiI.LimosaniR.VitanzaA.D'OnofrioG.TsuiM.SancarloD.GiulianiF.GrecoA.GuiotD.SengesE.CavalloF. (2021). Assistive robots to improve the independent living of older persons: Results from a needs study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1642392
18.
FracassoF.BuchweitzL.TheilA.CestaA.KornO. (2022). Social robots acceptance and marketability in Italy and Germany: A cross-national study focusing on assisted living for older adults. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14(6), 1463–1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00884-z
19.
GongW.LiuJ. (2023). Investigating the predictors of telemedicine service usage intention in China during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association, 29(9), 1390–1398. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2022.0352
20.
HeY.HeQ.LiuQ. (2022a). Technology acceptance in socially assistive robots: Scoping review of models, measurement, and influencing factors. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2022, 6334732. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6334732
21.
HeY.LiuQ.HeQ. (2022b). Translation, adaptation, and psychometric testing of the Almere Technology Acceptance Questionnaire (ATAQ) among older adults in China. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 17, 1353–1364. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.S367781
22.
HeerinkM. (2011). Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction,Lausanne, Switzerland, March 6-9, 2011.
23.
HeerinkM.KröseB.EversV.WielingaB. (2008). The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people.
24.
HuangTHuangC (2021). Attitudes of the elderly living independently towards the use of robots to assist with activities of daily living. Work, 69(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-205166.
25.
HuppertzC.ForbrigT. A.Lengert-BrzozowskiS.GräskeJ. (2023). Associations between older adults' loneliness and acceptance of socially assistive robots: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(4), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20230309-04
26.
JungO.HollaufE.Hornung-PrähauserV.den UylT.van ZonK. (2023). Promoting healthy aging using a robot support system and emotion recognition. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 301, 140–141. https://doi.org/10.3233/shti230028
27.
KachaturoffM.ShidlerK.FasbinderA.Caboral-StevensM. (2021). Acceptability of socially assistive robots among cognitively intact older adults: An integrative review. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 47(9), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20210803-05
28.
KimJ.ParkK.RyuH. (2022). Social values of care robots. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16657. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416657
29.
LakatosG.WoodL. J.ZarakiA.RobinsB.DautenhahnK.AmirabdollahianF. (2019). Effects of previous exposure on children’s perception of a humanoid robot. Social Robotics: 11th International Conference, ICSR 2019, Madrid, Spain, November 26–29, 2019, Proceedings 11.
LeeY.KozarK. A.LarsenK. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.01250
32.
LehmannS.RufE.MisochS. (2020). Emotions and attitudes of older adults toward robots of different appearances and in different situations. International conference on information and communication technologies for ageing well and e-health, ICT4AWE 2020, Prague, Czech Republic, May 3-5, 2020.
33.
LeiM.ClementeI. M.LiuH.BellJ. (2022). The acceptance of telepresence robots in higher education. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14(4), 1025–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00837-y
34.
LouieW. Y.McCollD.NejatG. (2014). Acceptance and attitudes toward a human-like socially assistive robot by older adults. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of Resna, 26(3), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2013.869703
35.
Murciano HuesoA.Martín GarcíaA. V.Torrijos FinciasP. (2022). [Systematic review of digital technology acceptance in older adults. Perspective of TAM models]. Revista Española de Geriatría y Gerontología, 57(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regg.2022.01.004
36.
NadalC.SasC.DohertyG. (2020). Technology acceptance in mobile health: Scoping review of definitions, models, and measurement. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(7), Article e17256. https://doi.org/10.2196/17256
37.
NikolopoulosF.LikothanassisS. (2018). A complete evaluation of the TAM3 model for cloud computing technology acceptance. On the move to meaningful internet systems. OTM 2018 conferences: Confederated international conferences: CoopIS, C&TC, and ODBASE 2018, Valletta, Malta, October 22-26, 2018, Proceedings, Part II.
38.
PapadopoulosI.WrightS.KoulougliotiC.AliS.LazzarinoR.Martín-GarcíaÁ.Oter-QuintanaC.KoutaC.RousouE.PappK.KrepinskaR.TothovaV.MalliarouM.ApostolaraP.Lesińska-SawickaM.NagorskaM.LiskovaM.NortvedtL.AlpersL. M.NissimS. (2023). Socially assistive robots in health and social care: Acceptance and cultural factors. Results from an exploratory international online survey. Japan Journal of Nursing Science: JJNS, 20(2), Article e12523. https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12523
39.
PetersM. D. J.MarnieC.TriccoA. C.PollockD.MunnZ.AlexanderL.McInerneyP.GodfreyC. M.KhalilH. (2021). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000277
40.
PuL.MoyleW.JonesC.TodorovicM. (2019). The effectiveness of social robots for older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. The Gerontologist, 59(1), Article e37–e51. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny046
41.
RamachandranH. J.JiangY.TeoJ. Y. C.YeoT. J.WangW. (2022). Technology acceptance of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation programs in patients with coronary heart disease: Systematic scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(1), Article e34657. https://doi.org/10.2196/34657
42.
RobillardJ. M.KabacińskaK. (2020). Realizing the potential of robotics for aged care through co-creation. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease: JAD, 76(2), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200214
43.
RossiSSantangeloGStaffaMVarrasiSContiDDi NuovoA (2018). Psychometric evaluation supported by a social robot: Personality factors and technology acceptance. 2018 27th 1EEE Iternational Sympositm on Robot and Hmman Iteractve Conmuacation (RO-MAN), 802–807.
44.
TortaE.WernerF.JohnsonD. O.JuolaJ. F.CuijpersR. H.BazzaniM.OberzaucherJ.LembergerJ.LewyH.BregmanJ.BregmanJ. (2014). Evaluation of a small socially-assistive humanoid robot in intelligent homes for the care of the elderly. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 76(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-013-0019-0
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. J. M. s. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
47.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. J. M. q. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view (pp. 425–478). MIS quarterly.
48.
ViswanathanM.PatnodeC. D.BerkmanN. D.BassE. B.ChangS.HartlingL.MuradM. H.TreadwellJ. R.KaneR. L. (2017). Assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health care interventions[internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Ouality. https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/books/NBK519366/
49.
WeberE. U. (1998). From performance to decision processes in 33 years: A history of organizational behavior and human decision processes under James C. Naylor. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2811
50.
WhelanS.MurphyK.BarrettE.KruscheC.SantorelliA.CaseyD. (2018). Factors affecting the acceptability of social robots by older adults including people with dementia or cognitive impairment: A literature review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(5), 643–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0471-x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
