This study will be conducted to test a Socially-Assistive Robot (SAR) system for residents in an Assisted Living environment. The goal of the SAR system is to enhance social engagement and connectedness. The system engages residents via robot-facilitated activities such as trivia and reminder and is integrated with the SimpleC Wellness Platform.
This is a mixed-method study to assess the effectiveness of the SAR system. The study includes behavior/lifestyle intervention that are delivered via a robot and/or tablet. The study intervention is a Social Assistive Robot (SAR) System. The SAR system contains the SimpleC Platform, physical robot, virtual agent/robot. The goal is to engage residents in a natural language conversation as psychosocial support (enhancing mood, mitigating the effects of loneliness, and enhancing social connection and communication) and provide value to the organization and its staff. Research questions include: 1. Are existing and new residents engaged and satisfied with the Technology Intervention Program? 2. What are the benefits (health, behavioral, economic, and social) of the virtual agent and physical robot? 3. Which users will adopt the SAR system? 4. What are facilitators and barriers to SAR system adoption? 5. Does Technology Acceptance Theory explain adoption over time? 6. Do changing needs affect changing technology attitude? 7. What are guidelines for implementation and design? Sample: 270 individuals will participate: 90 residents, 90 family, and 90 staff across different study locations. Enrollment will be stopped upon reaching saturation. 1. Participants in both conditions will have access to personal media, reminders, televisit, messaging, news, and wellness programs in their own room via the Companion. 2. Participants in the SAR condition will have access to social and health reminders as well as social and wellness programs facilitated by a virtual robot agent in their own room via the Companion. 3. Participants in the SAR condition will also have access to social and health reminders as well as social and wellness programs facilitated by a physical robot in the community area and a staff member (likely the activity director). The goal is to offer SAR-facilitated group session at least once per week, for residents to attend at least one such session over the course of the study and two sessions/month.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
63
Traditional SimpleC Wellness
Robot interventions
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia, United States
SimpleC
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Change in Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS). An 18-item scale with high scores indicating positive attitudes for dimensions of warmth and competency and a negative attitude for dimension of discomfort.
\[Questionnaire\] Perception and judgment of Social Assistive Robot social attributes on 3 dimensions: Warmth, competency, and discomfort
Time frame: Midpoint (3 months), Final (6 months)
Change in Caregiver Guilt Scale. A 4-point scale with higher score indicating higher guilt.
\[Questionnaire\] Family caregiver feelings of guilt.
Time frame: Baseline, Midpoint (3 months), Final (6 months)
Change in Perceived Stress Scale. A 5-point scale with higher scores indicating higher stress.
\[Questionnaire\] Family caregiver experience of stress in the past 4 months. Modification: Answer as it relates to caregiving.
Time frame: Baseline, Midpoint (3 months), Final (6 months)
Change in Technology Acceptance and Experience Questionnaire. A scale with high scores indicating higher acceptance.
\[Questionnaire\] Assessment of users' perceived ease of use, usefulness, and satisfaction of using the technology.
Time frame: Midpoint (3 months), Final (6 months)
Change in Quality of Life. A 13-item survey with high scores indicating higher quality of life.
\[Questionnaire\] Assessment of different aspects of quality of life, including physical health, energy, family, money.
Time frame: Baseline, Midpoint (3 months), Final (6 months)
Technology acceptance and adoption Interview.
\[Interview\] Assessment of users acceptance and adoption ease of use, usefulness, and satisfaction of using the technology.
Time frame: Midpoint (3 months)
Technology acceptance and adoption Interview.
\[Interview\] Assessment of users acceptance and adoption ease of use, usefulness, and satisfaction of using the technology.
Time frame: Final (6 months)
Usability and usefulness
Identified factors that indicate the ease of use and usefulness for different tasks as derived from analysis of: \[Interview, usage data\]
Time frame: 6 months
Conversation quality
\[Interview\] User perceptions on the usefulness and ease of use in conversing with the technology.
Time frame: 6 months
Value proposition/Economic Impact
\[Interview\] Discussions with facility staff and key decision makers to understand the value of the technology in providing social interaction and reminders to their residents.
Time frame: 6 months
Requirements
Identified requirements for design, training, and communication as derived from analysis of: \[Interview, observations\]
Time frame: 6 months
Affect
\[Interview\] Feelings of enjoyment, satisfaction, when using the technology
Time frame: 6 months
Participation Pattern
How often system is used, buttons clicked, voice activation \[usage data, interview, observations\]
Time frame: 6 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.