Declines in older adults’ cognitive and physical health pose challenges to maintaining their independence. Robots can improve independent living and facilitate aging-in-place. Despite recent innovations in healthcare robotics, the use of robots has not advanced significantly among older adults. This review seeks to understand human-robot interactions in older adults, focusing on their experiences and perceptions of robots for independent living. We identified 17 studies that utilized qualitative methods to investigate older adults and/or their caregivers’ experiences and perceptions of robots designed to help older adults improve independent living. Drawing on content analysis, we identified eight themes: usefulness, ease of use, safety, reliability, self-efficacy, satisfaction, emotional connection with the robot and reciprocity, and intention to use. The findings provide insights to improve existing robots and guide future research about designing robots with higher acceptance. This review may have implications for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers working with robotics to support healthy aging-in-place.
AjaykumarG.PinedaK. T.HuangC.-M. (2023). Older adults’ expectations, experiences, and preferences in programming physical robot assistance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 180(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103127
2.
AlharbiA.DrewS. (2014). User satisfaction: A key to the success of any system. 5(1), 1–15.
3.
BajonesM.FischingerD.WeissA.De La PuenteP.WolfD.VinczeM.KoertnerT.WeningerM.PapoutsakisK.MichelD.QammazA.PantelerisP.FoukarakisM.AdamiI.IoannidiD.LeonidisA.AntonaM.ArgyrosA.MayerP.FrennertS. (2020). Results of field trials with a mobile service robot for older adults in 16 private households. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 9(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368554
4.
BakasT.SampselD.IsraelJ.ChamnikarA.EllardA.ClarkJ. G.UlrichM. G.VanderelstD. (2018). Satisfaction and technology evaluation of a telehealth robotic program to optimize healthy independent living for older adults. Journal of Nursing Scholarship: An Official Publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, 50(6), 666–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12436
5.
BedafS.GelderblomG. J.De WitteL. (2015). Overview and categorization of robots supporting independent living of elderly people: What activities do they support and how far have they developed. Assistive Technology, 27(2), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2014.978916
6.
BedafS.MartiP.AmirabdollahianF.de WitteL. (2017). A multi-perspective evaluation of a service robot for seniors: The voice of different stakeholders. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(6), 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1358300
7.
BeerJ. M.PrakashA.SmarrC.-A.ChenT. L.HawkinsK.NguyenH.DeyleT.MitznerT. L.KempC. C.RogersW. A. (2017). Older users’ acceptance of an assistive robot: Attitudinal changes following brief exposure. Gerontechnology: International Journal on the Fundamental Aspects of Technology to Serve the Ageing Society, 16(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2017.16.1.003.00
8.
ButlerA.HallH.CopnellB. (2016). A guide to writing a qualitative systematic review protocol to enhance evidence-based practice in nursing and health care. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12134
9.
ChaparroJ. D.RuizJ. F.-B.RomeroM. J. S.PeñoC. B.IrurtiaL. U.PereaM. G.GarciaX. D. T.MolinaF. J. V.GrigoleitS.LopezJ. C. (2021). The SHAPES smart mirror approach for independent living, healthy and active ageing. Sensors, 21(23), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21237938
10.
ChenN.SabetM.SapkotaN.ParekhM.ChiluwalS.KoehlerK.ClemonsC. M.DingY.RaoA. M.PillaS. (2024). Bioderived silicon nano-quills: Synthesis, structure and performance in lithium-ion battery anodes. Green Chemistry, 26(8), 4691–4702.
11.
ChuL.ChenH.-W.ChengP.-Y.HoP.WengI.-T.YangP.-L.ChienS.-E.TuY.-C.YangC.-C.WangT.-M.FungH. H.YehS.-L. (2019). Identifying features that enhance older adults’ acceptance of robots: A mixed methods study. Gerontology, 65(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1159/000494881
12.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 13(3), 319–340. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
EftringH.FrennertS. (2016). Designing a social and assistive robot for seniors. Zeitschrift Für Gerontologie Und Geriatrie, 49(4), 274–281.
15.
GasteigerN.AhnH. S.FokC.LimJ.LeeC.MacDonaldB. A.KimG. H.BroadbentE. (2022). Older adults’ experiences and perceptions of living with bomy, an assistive dailycare robot: A qualitative study. Assistive Technology, 34(4), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2021.1877210
16.
GeG. L.SchleimerS. C. (2023). Robotic technologies and well-being for older adults living at home. Journal of Services Marketing, 37(3), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-03-2022-0076
17.
HosseiniM.-S.JahanshahlouF.AkbarzadehM. A.ZareiM.Vaez-GharamalekiY. (2024). Formulating research questions for evidence-based studies. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 2, 100046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2023.100046
18.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
19.
HudsonJ.UngarR.AlbrightL.TkatchR.SchaefferJ.WickerE. R. (2020). Robotic pet use among community-dwelling older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 75(9), 2018–2028. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa119
20.
HungL.WongK. L. Y.WongJ.ParkJ.MousavinejadA.ZhaoH. (2023). Facilitators and barriers to using AI-enabled robots with older adults in long-term care from staff perspective: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open, 13(10), e075278. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075278
21.
IgarashiT.NiheiM.InoueT.SugawaraI.KamataM. (2022). Eliciting a user’s preferences by the self-disclosure of socially assistive robots in local households of older adults to facilitate verbal human-robot interaction. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19(18), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811319
22.
IrfanB.KuoppamäkiS.SkantzeG. (2024). Recommendations for designing conversational companion robots with older adults through foundation models. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 11, 1363713. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2024.1363713
23.
Izadi-AvanjiF. S.RahemiZ.Adib-HajbagheryM.Yazdani-DarkiM. (2021). Factors influencing use of technology in older adults’ daily life. International Archives of Health Sciences, 8(3), 190–195.
24.
KhosraviP.GhapanchiA. H. (2015). Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 85(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.05.014
25.
LangJ. E.AndersonL.JamesL.SharkeyJ.BelanskyE.BryantL.ProhaskaT.AltpeterM.MarshallV.SatarianoW. (2006). Peer reviewed: The prevention research centers healthy aging research network. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(1), 1.
26.
LeeO.LeeH.ParkA.ChoiN. G. (2024). My precious friend: Human-robot interactions in home care for socially isolated older adults. Clinical Gerontologist, 47(1), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2022.2156829
27.
LeeO.NamI.ChonY.ParkA.ChoiN. (2023). Socially assistive humanoid robots: Effects on depression and health-related quality of life among low-income, socially isolated older adults in South Korea. Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 42(3), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648221138283
28.
LeeS.OryM. G.Vollmer DahlkeD.SmithM. L. (2024). Technology use among older adults and their caregivers: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Aging, 7, e50759. https://doi.org/10.2196/50759
29.
LeungA. Y. M.ZhaoI. Y.LinS.LauT. K. (2022). Exploring the presence of humanoid social robots at home and capturing human-robot interactions with older adults: Experiences from four case studies. Healthcare (Basel), 11(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11010039
LockwoodC.PorrittK.MunnZ.RittenmeyerL.SalmondS.BjerrumM.LovedayH.CarrierJ.StannardD. (2024). Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. In JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
32.
ManziA.FioriniL.EspositoR.BonaccorsiM.MannariI.DarioP.CavalloF. (2017). Design of a cloud robotic system to support senior citizens: The KuBo experience. Autonomous Robots, 41(3), 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-016-9569-x
33.
MerilampiS.PoberžnikA.SaariS.SerranoJ. A.GüttleJ.LangoschK.BockT.ZouL.MagneT. A. (2020). Modular smart furniture system for independent living of older adults- user experience study. Gerontechnology, 19(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2020.19.04.392
34.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G.AltmanD.AntesG.AtkinsD.BarbourV.BarrowmanN.BerlinJ. A. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (Chinese edition). Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine, 7(9), 889–896.
35.
MoisG.BeerJ. M. (2020). The role of healthcare robotics in providing support to older adults: A socio-ecological perspective. Current Geriatrics Reports, 9(2), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13670-020-00314-w
OllevierA.AguiarG.PalominoM.SimpelaereI. S. (2020). How can technology support ageing in place in healthy older adults? A systematic review. Public Health Reviews, 41(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-020-00143-4
38.
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), e37–e51. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny046
39.
RaghunathN.PereydaC.FrowJ. F.CookD.Schmitter-EdgecombeM. (2020). Learning-enabled robotic assistive support: Understanding older adult opinions and comparing them to younger adult opinions. Gerontechnology: International Journal on the Fundamental Aspects of Technology to Serve the Ageing Society, 19(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2020.19.003.07
40.
RahemiZ.D’AvolioD.DunphyL. M.RiveraA. (2018). Shifting management in healthcare: An integrative review of design thinking. Nursing Management, 49(12), 30–37.
41.
RahemiZ.WilliamsC. (2015). Development of a dignity-enhancing model of caring for older adults. International Journal for Human Caring, 19(3), 36–41.
42.
RantanenP.ParkkariT.LeikolaS.AiraksinenM.LylesA. (2017). An in-home advanced robotic system to manage elderly home-care patients’ medications: A pilot safety and usability study. Clinical Therapeutics, 39(5), 1054–1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.03.020
43.
RatnayakeM.LPCMHATRNCC1LukasS.BrathwaiteS.NeaveJ.HenryH.BS-c5 (2022). Aging in place: Are we prepared?Delaware Journal of Public Health, 8(3), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.32481/djph.2022.08.007
44.
ReadE.WoolseyC.DonelleL.WeeksL.ChinhoN. (2023). Passive remote monitoring and aging in place: A scoping review. Canadian Journal on Aging = La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 42(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980822000198
SabharwalS.WilsonH.ReillyP.GupteC. M. (2015). Heterogeneity of the definition of elderly age in current orthopaedic research. SpringerPlus, 4, 516. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1307-x
47.
ShawG. (2024). Flexible scheduling strategies to ease shortages of neurology staff post-COVID. Neurology Today, 24(7), 31–32.
48.
ShishehgarM.KerrD.BlakeJ. (2018). A systematic review of research into how robotic technology can help older people. Smart Health, 7–8, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smhl.2018.03.002
49.
SmarrC.-A.MitznerT. L.BeerJ. M.PrakashA.ChenT. L.KempC. C.RogersW. A. (2014). Domestic robots for older adults: Attitudes, preferences, and potential. International Journal of Social Robotics, 6, 229–247.
50.
SternC.JordanZ.McArthurA. (2014). Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 114(4), 53–56.
51.
TsiakasK.AbellanozaC.AbujelalaM.PapakostasM.MakadaT.MakedonF. (2017). Towards designing a socially assistive robot for adaptive and personalized cognitive training. In Proceedings of the Robots (4).
52.
WuX.NixL. C.BrummettA. M.AguillonC.OltmanD. J.BeerJ. M. (2021). The design, development, and evaluation of telepresence interfaces for aging adults: Investigating user perceptions of privacy and usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 156, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102695
53.
Yazdani-DarkiM.RahemiZ.Adib-HajbagheryM.Izadi-AvanjiF. S. (2020). Older adults’ barriers to use technology in daily life: A qualitative study. Nursing and Midwifery Studies, 9(4), 229–236.
54.
ZuckermanO.WalkerD.GrishkoA.MoranT.LevyC.LisakB.WaldI. Y.ErelH. (2020). Companionship is not a function: The effect of a novel robotic object on healthy older adults’ feelings of “being-seen”. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376411
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.
