Abstract
We discuss the possibility of using the PARO robot in the practice of Czech social work. In our research, we used a modified standardized questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. In the research, we compared the evaluation of the PARO robot from the perspective of older adult home staff and older adults. The research helped to identify constructs linked to social robot acceptance that may define benefits and barriers to the implementation of social robots for older adults in social services. If social robots are to be introduced into homes for older adults, we need to respect the perspective of older adults themselves when making decisions about the use of social robots. Furthermore, there is a need for the staff in older adult homes who will be involved in the robot use to be sufficiently educated.
Introduction
The Czech Republic, like many countries, is facing a rapid demographic shift: older adults (65+) currently comprise 20% of the population, a proportion projected to exceed 24% by 2030 and 32% by 2050 (Czech Statistical Office [CSO], 2022). Healthy life expectancy remains relatively high, 76 years for men and 82 for women (CSO, 2023). The growing number of older adults increases the demand for health and social care services. For social work practitioners, this trend presents a pressing challenge. How to ensure quality, person-centered care in the face of workforce shortages and rising needs.
Currently, 2.5% of older adults in the Czech Republic live in residential social services facilities, with many applications unfulfilled each year. The most in-demand services are residential homes for older adults, particularly for those aged 86–95 (CSO, 2021). These homes, defined by the Social Services Act no. 108/2006 Coll., provide long-term support for individuals with reduced self-sufficiency who require daily assistance. In parallel, almost 100,000 older adults use home care services annually (Statistical Yearbook, 2022), reflecting a substantial group of community-dwelling elders dependent on formal care.
In this context, innovative interventions, such as assistive social robots, are being explored internationally to support emotional wellbeing and social engagement in older adults (Broadbent et al., 2009; Shishehgar et al., 2018). The robotic seal PARO, for example, has demonstrated potential in fulfilling psychosocial needs (Inoue et al., 2021). Although robots cannot replace human care, they can serve as a meaningful complement (Chu et al., 2019), especially when staff shortages threaten the quality of services. PARO is a therapeutic robotic seal designed to adapt to individual users and respond in ways that align with their preferences. It is among the most widely used social and companion robots in practice with older adults receiving residential social services. During interaction, PARO behaves as if it were a living creature: it moves its head and flippers; blinks; responds to touch, light, and sound; and produces vocalizations resembling those of a baby seal. Through these sensor-based responses and its capacity to exhibit preferred behavioral patterns, PARO creates the impression of social presence. The robot’s ability to react to auditory and tactile stimuli and to display emotion-like behaviors enables it to provide social and emotional support to users (Shibata, 2012). Importantly, PARO and similar technologies may also indirectly support families by reducing caregiving burden, alleviating concerns about loneliness or distress, and enhancing relatives’ confidence in the quality of care provided in residential settings.
The presented research aimed to find out how social and other professional staff of residential social services in older adult homes in the Czech Republic and the users of this service themselves accept personalized interventions with a PARO robot within the provided social service. Understanding user and practitioner perspectives is critical to assessing the feasibility, benefits, and limitations of integrating such technology into social service practice. The objective of the study was to investigate the acceptance of the PARO robot among older adults and staff in residential social services and to generate empirical insights that can guide decision-making regarding the integration of social robots into Czech social work practice.
Importantly, despite the growing international evidence base on social robots, there remains a significant lack of empirical knowledge from the Czech social work context. Residential facilities face increasing pressure, yet there is limited guidance for practitioners on whether and how social robots could meaningfully enhance care. This gap makes it essential to investigate acceptance among both staff and older adults, as successful implementation depends on their willingness to engage with such technologies. Without this foundational understanding, decisions about introducing social robots risk being disconnected from the real needs, expectations, and concerns of users and frontline workers.
This research contributes to ongoing discussions about ethical, person-centered innovations that respond to the realities of an aging society and the evolving role of gerontechnology in social work.
Theory
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology in Research Studies of Older Adults
If robots are to be used in social services for older adults, they must be accepted by both themselves and staff. Acceptance of a robot is defined as voluntary integration into a person’s life. For robot acceptance to occur, there are three basic requirements to be met: (a) motivation to use the robot; (b) sufficient ease of use; and (c) physical, cognitive, and emotional comfort in the robot use (Broadbent et al., 2009). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) found that perceived usefulness, ease of use, arousal, and pleasure associated with adoption intentions are the key.
TAM, originally proposed by Davis (1989), explains why individuals choose to adopt or reject new technologies. According to TAM, perceived usefulness (the degree to which a person believes the technology will enhance their performance) and perceived ease of use (the degree to which a person believes the technology will be simple and effortless to use) directly influence attitudes toward technology and subsequent intentions to use it. TAM has been widely applied in gerontechnology research because these beliefs are particularly relevant for older adults, who may face usability concerns, lower technology confidence, or physical limitations. In the context of social robots, TAM helps clarify whether older adults and staff perceive the robot as beneficial and manageable within everyday care routines.
Venkatesh et al. (2003) published an inventory of current models and factors and presented a model called Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) in which all relevant factors were incorporated. UTAUT expands the original TAM primarily by extending its two key constructs (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) into four main determinants of technology acceptance (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions), while also adding moderating variables such as age, gender, experience, and voluntariness of use. Broadbent et al. (2009) note other variables that are important for robot acceptance: age, needs, gender, experience with technology, cognitive ability over education, culture, and role. We will analyze each of these variables.
In our quantitative research we used a modified standardized questionnaire designed by Heerink et al. (2010) according to the UTAUT model (see Table 1). The questionnaire contains selected constructs such as perceived usefulness, ease of use, social influence, trust, and anxiety, which are especially relevant when assessing how older adults and staff react to an unfamiliar technology such as the PARO robot. These constructs help capture the cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions of acceptance, providing a comprehensive picture of factors that may support or hinder robot implementation in social services.
Constructs Included in the Heerink et al. (2010) Questionnaire and Their Meaning.
Methodology
In relation to the research problem—where we have no knowledge about the acceptance of the PARO robot by Czech professional workers in residential social services or the users themselves—and the research objectives, we formulated the main research question as follows: How do social and other professional workers of residential social services in older adult homes in the Czech Republic and the users of this service accept personalized human-robot interventions within the provided social service?
In the Czech Republic, the use of assistive technologies in social care is emerging, for example digital tools such as sensor-based monitoring systems, telecare devices, and communication technologies being implemented more frequently in both institutional and community settings (Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, n.d.). However, the integration of social or companion robots remains rare, and empirical evaluations of their acceptance are virtually absent. International literature from high-income countries further indicates that PARO has been successfully implemented in diverse contexts such as dementia care units, long-term care facilities, and hospital-based geriatric wards. These studies consistently report benefits including reduced loneliness, improved mood, and enhanced social engagement among older adults (Wang et al., 2022).
For the research we utilized a Mixed methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) using the embedded design model. According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), we collected both quantitative and qualitative data during one research phase during one time period. Data collection took place from June 2022 to March 2024.
(1) Quantitative data were collected through a standardized questionnaire (UTAUT) received from 133 older adult home staff and 136 older adult clients of selected older adult homes. A total of 16 homes were contacted through an offer to participate in the research. This offer was sent by email to all directors of older adult homes in the city of Ostrava. Of the homes contacted, a total of five were willing to participate in the research. Table 2 shows the UTAUT questionnaire with construct codes and statements. The older adult home staff completed the questionnaires independently after they were introduced to and had the opportunity to interact with the PARO robot. An interviewer also introduced the PARO robot to older adults and gave each one a space to interact with the robot. The interviewer then completed the questionnaire with each person. The older adult home staff and the older adults ranked the statements in the questionnaire on a five-point scale: 1 = I strongly agree, 2 = I tend to agree, 3 = I neither agree/nor disagree, 4 = I tend to disagree, 5 = I strongly disagree. As part of the quantitative data analysis, we compared the PARO robot evaluation between two groups: older adult home staff and older adults.
(2) We then carried out the qualitative part of the research in the form of interviews focused on the evaluation of the PARO robot with 23 older adult home workers and 136 service users (older adults). The interviews reflected their feelings, opinions, benefits and barriers they perceived in using the PARO robot. We used semi-structured interviews with older adults and staff members in residential older adult homes. The interview guide was developed based on the UTAUT framework and existing literature on social robot acceptance. The guide included open-ended questions, for example: “How did you feel when interacting with the PARO robot?” or “In what situations do you think the PARO robot could be useful or not useful?.” The interviews with staff took an average of 36 minutes, and with older adults 32 minutes.
UTAUT Questionnaire Totaling 12 Constructs and 30 Statements.
Participants were recruited from residential older adult homes in the Czech Republic, with both quantitative and qualitative samples drawn from the same group of facilities. Quantitative data were collected using a modified standardized questionnaire based on the UTAUT framework, administered after participants had an opportunity to interact with the PARO robot. Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews following participants’ interaction with the robot. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized prior to analysis.
Inclusion criteria for staff participants were employment in a residential older adult home. Older adults were eligible to participate if they were residents of the facility, were able to communicate verbally, able to provide informed consent, and willing to interact with the PARO robot. Older adults with severe cognitive impairments that prevented informed consent or meaningful participation were excluded from the study. Cognitive status was not assessed through formal diagnostic tools by the research team, but was evaluated by facility staff based on routine clinical and care assessments commonly used in daily practice. Older adult home workers and older adults were informed about the research intent, their voluntary participation and option to withdraw from the research at any time, the research anonymity, and confidentiality rule for researchers. They signed consent to participate in the interview. The interview was recorded and then transcribed verbatim, anonymized and analyzed using deductive thematic analysis steps following Braun and Clarke (2012). In line with Braun and Clarke (2012), we sought to understand thoughts and feelings and then search for shared meanings of the benefits and barriers of PARO social robots. Ethical oversight included procedures to ensure informed consent, respect for participants’ autonomy, and protection of sensitive data. This research was approved by the University of Ostrava Research Ethics Committee in 2022.
In total, 133 completed questionnaires were obtained from staff members of older adult homes in the Czech Republic. The average age of the workers was 45 (min. 20, max. 61). In terms of job position, 103 social service workers, 20 social workers, 4 social service managers, 3 activation workers, 1 occupational therapist, 1 general nurse, and 1 director participated in the research.
In addition, 136 completed questionnaires were obtained from older adult home clients who participated in the study. Older adults were defined as individuals aged 65 years and above; however, a small number of participants below this threshold were included in the sample. These individuals were aged 60 years and older and were users of the long-term care and social services in which the research was conducted. The average age of older adults was 82 years (min. 60, max. 100). The older adults rated their health on a scale from 1 (best) to 5 (worst): 55 of them rated their health on a scale 2, 44 on scale 1, 31 on scale 3, 6 on scale 4. None of them rated their health as the worst, that is, on scale 5. Next, we asked them if they would be interested in individualized interventions, that is, regular interventions (visits) with the PARO robot. Eighty-two older adults indicated that they would be interested in such regular visits, 37 indicated no interest, and 17 indicated that they did not yet know.
Findings and Analysis
We first present the results of the quantitative phase of the research performed using IBM SPSS software (version 25). These will be subsequently supplemented by qualitative results.
The questionnaire as a whole showed an acceptable level of reliability using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, namely the value of 0.874. Basic descriptive results obtained by its administration to the research sample are included in Table 3. Since this is a scale questionnaire, we present mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum (min.) and maximum (max.) values.
Basic Descriptive Statistics of Questionnaire Factors.
More detailed percentage results are presented in Table 4, where we include a comparison of the PARO robot evaluation from the perspective of workers and older adults. This table shows the comparison of individual items in the questionnaire, with scales 1+2 (agree), 4+5 (disagree) merged, with scale 3 (neither agree nor disagree) retained. Table 4 further shows that workers and older adults are in majority agreement on 11 constructs out of 12 except for Trust (TRU)—the belief that the robot can perform with personal integrity and reliability, where older adults are more inclined to trust it.
Comparison of Evaluations Between Older Adult Home Staff and Older Adults.
Next, we focus on a more detailed presentation of each of the (twelve) constructs under study (see Table 1) in the quantitative data and in the statements of individual actors (with the statements of individual social workers and older adults labeled SW1-SW23 and OA1-OA136).
PARO Robot and Anxiety (ANX, Statements 1–4)
Anxiety in the perception of robots (ANX) was focused on exploring the elicited anxiety or other emotional responses when using a robot. The analysis showed that the majority of older adult home workers demonstrated low levels of anxiety and positive responses to robot use prevailed in their accounts.
Workers reported that they did not find the PARO robot ugly (86%) or scary (80%): “I like it a lot. It doesn’t look like a real animal, but it’s pleasant to touch” (SW2). Staff talked more often about the potential threats and pitfalls of using the PARO robot. The generation gap may be a problem with robot use: “The older generation might be afraid of robots. It could be stressful for them (SW20).”
The analysis showed that most older adults also demonstrated low levels of anxiety while their response was mostly positive regarding use of the PARO robot. Older adults reported that they did not find the PARO robot ugly (99%) or scary (98%). Older adult said, “It warms my heart. It makes me feel good . . . hey, you little boy (talking to the robot while laughing) . . . it’s sweet (OA108).”
Attitude to PARO Robot (ATT, Statements 5–6)
The construct Attitude toward the Use of Robots (ATT) was intended to explore positive or negative feelings about the PARO robot. According to older adult home staff, it is a good idea to supply a PARO robot to older adult homes (65%). Fifty percent also agreed with the statement that a PARO robot would make their job more interesting.
The majority of older adults (65%) reported that it was a good idea to provide a PARO robot to older adult homes, but only 49% thought that a PARO robot would make their day more interesting. Positive attitudes toward the PARO robot are illustrated by the following statement, “It’s so nice. . . it cheers me up and understands me. I could live with it until I die (OA74).” On the other hand, some older adults compared the PARO robot to real animals. In this respect, the PARO robot cannot replace a real animal. “I like live animals a lot. This can’t replace a live animal for me, so I wouldn’t use it. That [animal] needs care and cleanliness too, and I can’t manage that anymore (OA67).”
In the interviews, we asked whether older adults would welcome personalized interventions. Sixty percent (82) accounted they would be happy to have regular contact with a PARO robot: “I’d look forward to the next visit (OA38).” The level of interest in the PARO robot suggests potential benefits on the lives of older adults (Inoue et al., 2021).
Facilitating Conditions About PARO Robot and Its Acceptance (FC, Statement 7)
The construct Facilitating Conditions explored whether subjectively perceived information about the robot can facilitate its use. According to some staff members, it is not appropriate to use social robots with the current generation of older adults: “The PARO robot is inappropriate for today’s older adults. Older adults are resistant to technology and robots, preferring personal contact (SW5).” Only 33% reported having sufficient knowledge to operate a PARO robot. The interviews revealed that this robot should be operated by a trained staff member in older adult homes,
There would have to be a person to learn how to operate the PARO robot. Because for example I don’t even know how to use the tablets for entertainment of our clients, other workers use that. You would need to motivate those workers to use the technology or the PARO robot in their work (SW15).
Also, only 29% of older adults believed that they had sufficient knowledge to operate the PARO robot. They pointed out their own low skills in using it: “I probably couldn’t handle the robot . . . like I said, I can’t even handle my phone . . . And it’s not worth it anymore for me to increase my knowledge. . . (OA2).” Another 55% stated they did not know if they had sufficient knowledge about the robot to use it. The interviews revealed the need to increase their knowledge in this area:
. . . well, in the future I’d need to know about robots that could serve me. I’d need to know what they can do; what they could help me with and how . . . but I doubt that I’ll be able to perceive something like that . . . My condition will become worse to be able to judge it (OA33).
Another communication partner (OA106) stated that she would like to have knowledge about robots, “I’d welcome lectures and documentaries. It’s interesting, it’s my first time seeing it.”
Intention of Use of the PARO Robot (ITU, Statement 8)
The construct Intention of Use examined whether older adult home staff and older adults would use the PARO robot, with 56% of older adult home workers indicating that they would use the PARO robot in their work. According to older adult home workers, it can have significant benefits for a certain group of older adults.
We have some clients who are bedridden and need complete care. And that’s where the PARO robot would be used. I’ve also noticed the loneliness—they stare at the wall and/or sometimes they watch the TV—but they’re so absent; these could be helped (SW13).
Also, 47% of older adults reported that they would use a PARO robot during the day. One female older adult (OA85) was positive about being given a chance to use the PARO robot: “. . . It’s easy to talk to, it feels like it answers my questions. It also calms me down and time would pass with it.” Another positive evaluation was given by the communication partner OA93, “By being nice, it makes you wanna cuddle it . . . otherwise I lie and look at the ceiling, so when it’s here it keeps me busy.” Thirty-one percent of older adults said they would not use this robot, which was also noted during the interview, “I can’t imagine myself playing with it [a robot], probably because I’m active. But a bedridden person can take it as a companion, it would make sense for such a person (OA19).”
Perceived Adaptability of the PARO Robot (PAD, Statement 9)
The Perceived Adaptability construct is aimed at exploring the robot’s ability to adapt to the user’s needs. Fifty-three percent of older adult home staff agreed with the statement that the PARO robot could adapt to the needs of older adults. This is mainly due to the lack of staff time to interact with older adults, “I sometimes feel I would need to be in multiple places to be able to at least greet every older adult within that day (SW10).” Staff reported that they would need gain experience with the PARO robot to assess its usefulness in relation to the needs of older adults. However, some workers (23%) felt that the PARO robot would not be able to adapt to the needs of older adults. According to these workers, robotics cannot replace human contact. “Our clients perceive a lot of that humanity. And I don’t know if the robot would be able to radiate that too. . . (SW19).”
Older adults rated the PAD construct similarly. Forty-seven percent of older adults said that the PARO would be able to adapt to what they needed. According to one older adult, “It’s cute, when one has nothing else to do, he or she would talk to it and pet it . . . It can make your day happier (OA60).” After interacting directly with the PARO robot, many older adults reported that it made part of their day more enjoyable. One older adult stated, “I’d need him to keep my leg warm . . . when I have heat on my leg it doesn’t hurt . . . (OA88).”
Perceived Enjoyment Connected With PARO Robot Use (PENJ, Statements 10–13)
The Perceived Enjoyment construct examined the feelings of pleasure and enjoyment associated with using the robot. In the research carried out, staff reported that they liked the PARO robot (68%), yet were rather skeptical about its potential use to promote emotional wellbeing in older adults: “I don’t think the elderly would accept robotic animals . . . it would probably fail to catch on . . . they like animal pets to stroke their fur when they are furry and warm . . . when they lick their hand . . . (SW6).” Similar reactions were also noted from some of the older adults, “I find it childish. It’s undesirable for an old person; I prefer to read something. You’re a cuttie (talking to the PARO) but not for me (OA3).” Ninety-six percent of older adults said they liked the PARO robot and enjoyed the interaction (78%): “Well I like it a lot. You’ve got nice eyes and eyelashes. . . and whiskers. . . (OA34).” “It’s my first time seeing it, so I like it. . .it looks good, if only it wouldn’t get boring (OA100).” Despite this fact, older adults mentioned possible risks: “Someone might get hooked on it and it would become such an addiction for example . . . (OA106).”
Emotional risk in robot-human interaction is also mentioned by some authors (see, e.g., Bao et al., 2023). According to them, humans often unconsciously perceive social robots as their partners rather than mere tools mediating some kind of social contact. On the contrary, (Robinson et al., 2014) state that an emotional relationship between a robot and an older adult who has no other social contacts can be beneficial. The fact that older adults prefer human contact in general is supported by our findings, “. . . rather than emotionally bonding to a robot, I’d prefer talking to someone (OA89).” However, during our interviews we also encountered positive opinions regarding the use and acceptance of robots: “If you’re bored, it doesn’t matter if it’s a human or a robot (OA86).”
Perceived Ease of Use of the PARO Robot (PEOU, Statements 14–17)
The Perceived Ease Of Use construct examines how people perceive ease of use. Staff in older adult homes reported that they found the PARO robot easy to use (68%). However, the workers felt that it was important that the robot was used by older adults in the presence of a trained worker:
The PARO is a good tool in that they get to touch it, and it reminds them of something. However, it needs to go hand in hand with personal contact with the worker and interaction and encouragement of that feeling that the PARO has created in them [older adults] is important (SW8).
According to social workers, robots and other modern technology can be part of social services provided that this technology is financially affordable. Social workers perceive their role as crucial in providing information regarding technology and robots for older adults not only among social service clients but also their family members, “Social workers could offer their client and family a robot use-option. It would also be good if an organisation owned the robot and could use it in services for the clients (SW21).” While social workers (although they have not received any training or education in advanced technology and robotics for older adults) are aware that “a lot of things will be replaced by robots and/or some technology (SW2),” they believe that human contact should not be completely replaced by any technology in social services.
In addition, a majority of older adults reported that the PARO robot was easy to use (71%) and that they could use the robot without assistance (69%). Nevertheless, some older adults expressed concerns about using it: “Well, I’d need some instructions on how to use it. . .I’d have to try it, but it would help me (OA74).”
Perceived Sociability of the PARO Robot (PS, Statements 18–20)
The Perceived Sociability construct focuses on the perceived ability of robots to simulate social behavior. Sixty-five percent of older adult home staff consider the PARO robot as a pleasant partner for communication and interaction. Workers in older adult homes gave examples of their clients spending time with different “toys” or personal items: “We had a lady who had this monkey toy that made noises. She liked it very much and talked to it (SW11).” Another worker (SW11) said that she would welcome robots in her older adult home: “It would save the time that the worker doesn’t have . . . and then an older adult would feel that someone is there with them . . .”
Sixty-two percent of older adults considered the PARO robot as a pleasant partner to interact with: “I’d talk to it (OA98).” On the other hand, 32% did not find the PARO robot a pleasant interaction partner. Reasons for non-acceptance are mainly perceived lack of need: “If I was helpless it would not be bad, but I don’t need it yet. I’m not ready to have a robot here (OA2).”
Perceived Usefulness of the PARO Robot (PU, Statements 21–22)
The Perceived Usefulness construct examines the extent to which a person believes that a robot would be helpful in everyday activities. Staff in older adult homes believed that it would be useful to have a PARO robot (53%) in a home, and 39% agreed with the statement that a PARO robot could help staff with their work.
In contrast, older adults were ambivalent about the usefulness and degree of assistance from a PARO robot. Forty-seven percent of older adults said that a PARO robot would be useful to them, but another 37% said that a PARO robot would not be useful to them at all. According to one older adult (OA93), it could be useful in certain situations, “For example, when I’m having my health issues that are such that they can’t be relieved with one pill, it [the robot] would fill my time and thoughts.” Similarly, older adults commented on the assistance possibility. Forty-seven percent of older adults said that a PARO robot could help them, “For the type of people like me, it’s the perfect thing and reassurance . . . (OA6)” or “For those who don’t like to be alone, it could be helpful . . . (OA16).” Another 35% of older adults said that the PARO robot would not help them in any way: “I wouldn’t lie down next to it to roll its eyes at me. It wouldn’t help me . . . (OA78).” It is not only these results that suggest the need for individual planning of personalized interventions based on mapping the needs of social service users.
Social Influence of the PARO Robot (SI, Statements 23–24)
The Social Influence construct looked at how older adult home staff and older adults perceived other people’s evaluations of the use of the PARO robot. Sixty-two percent of staff said that the use of the PARO robot in an older adult home would be positively received by society. Sixty percent thought that other people in an older adult home would welcome the use of the PARO robot. On the other hand, workers reported that the robot was not suitable for all clients, “If we gave it to clients who are well oriented and if they were not offended. . . but I believe they would be interested to see it and they would pet it (SW15).” Sixty-one percent of older adults believe that other people in an older adult home would use the PARO robot, “It could be a companion for a lot of people here. I’m getting by for now so I wouldn’t need it, but if I were to be all alone I could imagine such a form of help (OA77).” Forty-nine percent of older adults believe that the use of a PARO robot in an older adult home would be positively received by society, while at the same time 45% stated that they had no clear idea how society would view having a PARO robot in an older adult home. Shyness about using the robot, or negative attitudes of other people in using the PARO robot by older adults was one of the barriers they described, “They would tend to look at me weird that I have a robot here, that it’s a toy . . . they would say, you’re playing here . . . the surroundings would prevent me from using it (OA106).”
Social Presence of the PARO Robot (SP, Statements 25–28)
The Social Presence construct is related to the feeling of real presence and company of a social robot at a given moment. According to only 35% of older adult home workers, the PARO robot looks like a real pet animal. As SW1 stated,
One knows that it is not alive and that it is a machine. And that’s how a senior perceives it from the beginning. In my opinion, a living animal and a living being helps. I have no experience with this electronic pet, and I can’t really imagine it would work.
This attitude was also held by some older adults, “It’s nice, but it can’t replace a living animal for me (OA5).” For some older adults, the PARO robot evoked memories, “. . . we used to go for walks with our dog (OA105)”; therefore, the PARO robot can also be used during reminiscence therapy with older adults.
Trust and the PARO Robot (TRU, Statements 29–30)
The Trust construct focuses on the belief that the robot works reliably. Trust has a direct effect on Intention to Use. In terms of trust, the staff of older adult homes were the most critical. According to one older home worker:
older adults have to trust the person who takes care of them, and that trust is very essential there. If they see a machine and they don’t trust it, I don’t think they’ll have any fun with it. If it looked like a human, they would probably accept it more easily. . . I don’t know what it would do to the client if a robot, whatever it looked like, approached them and started interacting with them (SW12).
Only 18% of older adult home workers said they would trust a robot if it was programmed to give advice, and only 12% would follow that advice. Older adults showed higher levels of trust in the robot compared to home workers. Forty-seven percent of older adults said they would trust the robot if it could give advice while 35% of them would follow the advice the robot gave them.
Discussion and Implications for Practice
As shown in the summary table, which compares levels of agreement between the two stakeholder groups—social and other professional staff in older adult homes and the older adults themselves—substantial differences emerge in several of the statements.
In the following Statements (see Table 5), older adults express higher levels of agreement than workers, which is a surprising conclusion of our research. The constructs of Perceived Enjoyment (PENJ), Trust (TRU), Social Presence (SP) and Perceived Sociability (PS) can be considered as factors influencing older adults’ acceptance of the PARO robot. The use of social robots, including the PARO robot, is not a commonly implemented social work practice in the Czech Republic. If social robots are to be introduced into older adult homes, the perspective of older adults should be respected when deciding on their use. These results resonate with international findings showing that older adults often respond positively to social robots when interactions evoke emotional engagement, enjoyment, or perceived social presence (Bemelmans et al., 2012). In contrast, staff tend to approach the technology more critically, often due to concerns about workload implications, technological competence, or fears that robots could undermine human care (Papadopoulos et al., 2018). This divergence highlights a key implementation challenge: technologies that older adults find meaningful may still meet resistance from professionals expected to integrate them into practice.
An Overview of Statements With a Higher Level of Acceptance by Older Adults Compared to Older Adult Home Staff Members.
Although differences in acceptance between older adults and staff are evident across several constructs, the findings also reveal important areas of convergence. Both groups demonstrated low levels of anxiety related to interacting with the PARO robot, suggesting that the technology was generally not perceived as threatening. In addition, older adults and staff expressed positive attitudes toward introducing the robot into older adult homes, indicating a shared openness to experimentation with social robots.
This research delivers a number of implications. It is clear that if social robots are to be introduced into social work practice, it is essential that the older adult home staff who will be involved in their use are sufficiently trained/educated. Koh (2013) notes that universities can play a major role in promoting the use of robots and other technology through research. In this regard, universities play an important role in social robotics education and should facilitate a collaborative environment with social care services. Universities should encourage creation of multidisciplinary teams of students and academics to contribute to the development and application of social robots. Such collaboration may be facilitated through joint training programs for care professionals and students, aimed at developing both practical competencies and a critical understanding of social robot use in care. In addition, universities and social care institutions may engage in research partnerships focused on the development, implementation, and systematic evaluation of social robots in real-world care settings. The inclusion of social robotics within university curricula, particularly in social work education, may further strengthen interdisciplinary competencies and long-term preparedness for robot-assisted care.
The lower levels of acceptance observed among staff suggest limited familiarity with social robotics and uncertainty about their role in practice. This finding points to a need for systematic education and training addressing both practical and ethical dimensions of robot-assisted care. According to Al-Qudah et al. (2021), lower agreement among staff does not necessarily indicate rejection of the technology but may reflect greater caution, professional responsibility, or concerns related to implementation within organizational settings.
As shown in previous research (Hung et al., 2019), the PARO robot offers several benefits to older adults, including improved emotional wellbeing and social engagement. The higher acceptance of PARO among older adults observed in this study is consistent with these findings and reinforces the relevance of further exploring robot-assisted interventions in residential care settings. Similar conclusions are reported by Pu et al. (2019), whose systematic review found that social robots can positively influence social interaction, emotional states, and perceived quality of life among older adults, particularly in long-term care environments. However, according to Birks et al. (2016), there is still limited evidence evaluating the effectiveness of robotic therapies in promoting the health and wellbeing of older adults. Therefore, building on the acceptance patterns identified in this study, future research should explore the design and implementation of personalized PARO-based interventions with older adult home clients and systematically evaluate their impact not only on physical health but also on mental and social dimensions of well-being.
The research helped to identify constructs related to social robot acceptance that may define benefits and barriers to the implementation of social robots for older adults in social services. We recommend that future research should focus on investigating older adult home staff evaluations of the level of acceptance of other types of robots by older adults. There is also a need to research the reasons for low levels of acceptance of the robots in older adult homes and to examine other factors that hinder or assist the implementation of social robots in social work practice.
These findings highlight several implications for social work practice. The higher acceptance of PARO among older adults compared to staff underscores the importance of involving service users in decision-making about technological innovations, consistent with person-centered care principles. To address staff hesitancy, social service organizations should provide education and dialogue opportunities that build understanding, dispel misconceptions, and strengthen digital competencies. Successful implementation will also require multidisciplinary collaboration, with social workers bridging the needs of clients and the expertise of technology developers. Ethical considerations, such as client autonomy, privacy, and emotional wellbeing, must guide practice and policy. Social robots may also offer indirect benefits by easing the burden on family caregivers and enhancing their confidence in the quality of care provided. Finally, the evidence supports advocacy for including assistive technologies in social service funding frameworks, ensuring equitable access to innovations that can enhance quality of life for older adults.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
This study offers several strengths. First, it examines both, older adult and home staff members, perspectives using mixed methods, enabling the identification of nuanced differences in acceptance. Second, it contributes rare empirical evidence from the Czech context, which remains underrepresented in gerontechnology research. Third, by applying constructs derived from UTAUT, the study provides a theoretically grounded understanding of technology acceptance among older adults.
However, several limitations should be acknowledged. There is only partial information on this research topic in the Czech Republic so far, on the basis of which it would be possible to carry out a more comprehensive investigation. From a quantitative point of view, this is a relatively small research sample, which was obtained using the convenience sampling method. However, currently, the availability and use of PARO robots is rather local, which makes it impossible to create a larger sample. In this context we have decided to realize an explorative study on this topic and ask a descriptive research question. No generalizations were planned, no hypotheses were tested, and no statistical inference was applied. In the given context, we consider this approach to be adequate (see also a highly cited study on this topic by Bernardi et al., 2017). Nevertheless, as shown in Table 5, the differences between compared groups are high (18–30 percentage points), showing a practical substantive difference.
Responses may also be influenced by the novelty effect (Reimann et al., 2024): older adults may initially react positively simply because the technology is new. Staff concerns may be shaped by organizational culture or prior exposure to technology, factors not fully explored in this study (Melitski & Gavin, 2010).
Future research could address these limitations more directly through longitudinal study designs that examine changes in attitudes and acceptance over time, thereby reducing the influence of novelty effects. In addition, in-depth qualitative studies focusing on organizational culture and dynamics may provide deeper insights into contextual factors shaping the implementation and use of social robots in care settings.
Footnotes
Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Financial support for the research was provided by the Research of Excellence on Digital Technologies and Wellbeing (CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004583), which is co-financed by the European Union.
