Technology acceptance and perceptions of robotic assistive devices by older adults – implications for exoskeleton design

Abstract

Aim

This study explored and interpreted insights expressed by a cohort of older adults related to their life experience, their experiences using or assisting someone with assistive devices, and their perceptions of robots and robotic assistive devices, including lower limb exoskeletons.

Method

A grounded theory study was undertaken with 24 older adult participants over five months. Each participant participated in a structured interviewed regarding their experiences with technologies and in particular their perceptions of assistive technologies. Themes from the interviews were coded using Nvivo software.

Results

Five main themes emerged from this study – (1) Aging & life stage experiences, (2) Quality of Life, (3) Assistive Technologies, (4) Health Conditions & Care, (5) Products & Service Systems. These have influenced new constructs for a hybrid design tool that incorporates stages of Usability and TAMs (Technology Acceptance Models) to gauge (a) Perception, (b) Experience and (c) Perceived Impact by older adults of lower limb exoskeletons.

Conclusions: Emerging technologies such as robotic assistive devices require a specific enquiry to understand how best to optimise acceptance by older adults and avoid feelings by them of frustration, embarrassment and ultimately abandonment of these devices.

Implications for rehabilitation

• Older adults frequently require rehabilitation and assistance with ambulation

• Exoskeletons are forms of assistive technologies for rehabilitation, and they are moving from clinical use to more day care use, including as part of daily living

• These results help explain factors related to the perception of exoskeletons by older adults, which if considered during exoskeleton design, could improve the technology uptake and compliance with this technology use by these users

Keywords:

• Older adults
• technology acceptance
• exoskeletons
• user-centred design
• grounded theory

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was completed as part of the XoSoft project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation under grant agreement number 688175. This publication also emanated from research supported in part by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under Grant Number SFI 16/RC/3918 (CONFIRM Smart Manufacturing Research), co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund. The funding agencies played no role in the writing of the manuscript.