The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“Are we ready for robots that care for us?” Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots
Open accessAbstract
Socially Assistive Robots (SAR) may help improve care delivery at home for older adults with cognitive impairment and reduce the burden of informal caregivers. Examining the views of these stakeholders on SAR is fundamental in order to conceive acceptable and useful SAR for dementia care. This study investigated SAR acceptance among three groups of older adults living in the community: persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment, informal caregivers of persons with dementia, and healthy older adults. Different technology acceptance questions related to the robot and user characteristics, potential applications, feelings about technology, ethical issues, and barriers and facilitators for SAR adoption, were addressed in a mixed-method study. Participants (n = 25) completed a survey and took part in a focus group (n = 7). A functional robot prototype, a multimedia presentation, and some use-case scenarios provided a base for the discussion. Content analysis was carried out based on recorded material from focus groups. Results indicated that an accurate insight of influential factors for SAR acceptance could be gained by combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Participants acknowledged the potential benefits of SAR for supporting care at home for individuals with cognitive impairment. In all the three groups, intention to use SAR was found to be lower for the present time than that anticipated for the future. However, caregivers and persons with MCI had a higher perceived usefulness and intention to use SAR, at the present time, than healthy older adults, confirming that current needs are strongly related to technology acceptance and should influence SAR design. A key theme that emerged in this study was the importance of customizing SAR appearance, services, and social capabilities. Mismatch between needs and solutions offered by the robot, usability factors, and lack of experience with technology, were seen as the most important barriers for SAR adoption.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Kok, J. S., Berg, I. J., & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000353441 · Cited by 20,589
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 1×
“A small sample size reduces both, the chance of detecting true effects and the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect (Button et al., 2013).”
BackgroundAssessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5 · Cited by 1,229
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.593 · Cited by 549
Robot Therapy: A New Approach for Mental Healthcare of the Elderly – A Mini-Review
Shibata, T., & Wada, K. (2011) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000319015 · Cited by 437
‘But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users
Neven, L. (2010) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01218.x · Cited by 273
Wu, Y.-H., Wrobel, J., Cornuet, M., Kerhervé, H., Damnée, S., & Rigaud, A.-S. (2014) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s56435 · Cited by 261
Self-citationFlandorfer, P. (2012) · International Journal of Population Research · doi:10.1155/2012/829835 · Cited by 257
Topo, P., Saarikalle, K., Begley, E., Cahill, S., Holthe, T., & Macijauskiene, J. (2007) · Technology and Disability · doi:10.3233/tad-2007-192-309 · Cited by 40
Cited by
Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: A systematic review
Yusif, S., Soar, J., & Hafeez-Baig, A. (2016) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.07.004 · Cited by 548
The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot paro in care settings: a scoping review
Hung, L., Liu, C., Woldum, E., Au-Yeung, A., Berndt, A., Wallsworth, C., Horne, N., Gregorio, M., Mann, J., & Chaudhury, H. (2019) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1244-6 · Cited by 356
Meiland, F., Innes, A., Mountain, G., Robinson, L., van der Roest, H., García-Casal, J. A., Gove, D., Thyrian, J. R., Evans, S., Dröes, R.-M., et al. (2017) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/rehab.6376 · Cited by 339
Inclusion of older adults in the research and design of digital technology
Mannheim, I., Schwartz, E., Xi, W., Buttigieg, S. C., McDonnell-Naughton, M., Wouters, E. J. M., & van Zaalen, Y. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16193718 · Cited by 291
Christie, H. L., Bartels, S. L., Boots, L. M. M., Tange, H. J., Verhey, F. R. J., & de Vugt, M. E. (2018) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2018.07.002 · Cited by 139
Metadata
- Authors
- Pino, M., Boulay, M., Jouen, F., & Rigaud, A.-S.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2015-07-23
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 141-141
- ISSN
- 1663-4365 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1575107006
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 20.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00141
- The paper
- Pino, M., Boulay, M., Jouen, F., & Rigaud, A.-S. (2015). “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00141
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
