Skip to main content

MARIO Project: A Multicenter Survey About Companion Robot Acceptability in Caregivers of Patients with Dementia

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Ambient Assisted Living (ForItAAL 2016)

Abstract

In the frame of the European Community funded MARIO, caregivers of 139 dementia patients were recruited in National University of Ireland (NUIG), in Geriatrics Unit of IRCCS “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza”-Italy (IRCCS) and in Alzheimer Association Bari-Italy (AAB) for a multicenter survey on to determine the needs and preferences of caregivers for improving the assistance of dementia patients, and guiding technological development of MARIO. A six minute video on technological devices and functions of MARIO was showed, and all caregivers fulfilled a 43-item questionnaire that explored four areas: (A) Acceptability, (B) Functionality, (C) Support devices, and (D) Impact. Caregivers declared that to facilitate acceptance (over 17.5%) and to improve functionality of MARIO (over 29%) should be important/likely/useful. Over 20.3% of caregivers reported that following support devices in MARIO could be useful for their patients: (1) for monitoring bed-rest and movements, (2) for monitoring the medication use, (3) for monitoring the ambient environmental conditions, (4) for regulating heating, humidity, lighting and TV channel, (5) for undertaking comprehensive geriatric assessment, (6) for link to care planning, (7) for monitoring physiological deterioration, and (8) for monitoring cognitive deterioration. Over 21.8% of caregivers declared that MARIO should be useful to improve quality of life, quality of care, safety, emergency communications, home-based physical and/or cognitive rehabilitation programs, and to detect isolation and health status changes of their patients. MARIO is a novel approach employing robot companions, and its effect will be: (1) to facilitate and support persons with dementia and their caregivers, and (2) reduce social exclusion and isolation.

Grazia D’Onofrio—Macroarea of interest: Disability and rehabilitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Prince M, Jackson J (2009) Alzheimer’s disease international. World Alzheimer report. http://www.alz.co.uk/research/worldreport/ (Advance access published May 2016)

  2. Murphy K, Casey D (2015) http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Conferences/Previous-conferences/2015-Ljubljana/Detailed-programme-abstracts-and-presentations/PO1-Dementia-Friendly-Society (Advance Access published May 2016)

  3. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB (2010) Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med 7(7):e1000316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Steptoe A, Shankar A, Demakakos P, Wardle J (2013) Social isolation, loneliness and all-cause mortality in older men and women. In: Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the USA (PNAS), 10.1073/pnas.1219686110. 25 Mar 2013

  5. O’Shea E (2007) Implementing policy for dementia care in Ireland. The time for action is now. In Irish Centre for Social Gerontology, National University of Ireland, Galway

    Google Scholar 

  6. Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol 41:127–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. http://www.mario-project.eu/portal/

  8. Pilotto A, Ferrucci L, Franceschi M, D’Ambrosio LP, Scarcelli C, Cascavilla L, Paris F, Placentino G, Seripa D, Dallapiccola B, Leandro G (2008) Development and validation of a multidimensional prognostic index for 1-year mortality from the comprehensive geriatric assessment in hospitalized older patients. Rejuvenation Res 11:151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schulz R, Martire L (2004) Family caregiving of persons with dementia: prevalence, health effects and support strategies. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 12:240–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gaugler JE, Kane RA, Langlois J (2000) Assessment of family caregivers of older adults. In: Kane RL, Kane RA (eds) Assessing older persons: measures, meaning and practical applications. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 320–359

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gaugler JE, Davey A, Pearlin LI, Zarit SH (2000) Modeling caregiver adaptation over time: the longitudinal impact of behavior problems. Psychol Aging 15:437–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jönsson L, Wimo A (2009) The cost of dementia in Europe: a review of the evidence and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 27(5):391–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schulz R, O’Brien AT, Bookwala J, Fleissner K (1995) Psychiatric and physical morbidity effects of dementia caregiving: prevalence, correlates, and causes. Gerontologist 35:771–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mahoney R, Regan C, Katona C, Livingston G (2005) Anxiety and depression in family caregivers of people with Alzheimer disease: the LASER-AD study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 13:795–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clipp EC, George LK (1990) Psychotropic drug use among caregivers of patients with dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 38:227–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vitaliano PP, Zhang J, Scanlan JM (2003) Is caregiving hazardous to one’s physical health? A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 129:946–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Son J, Erno A, Shea DG, Femia EE, Zarit SH, Stephens MA (2007) The caregiver stress process and health outcomes. J Aging Health 19:871–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schulz R, Beach SR (1999) Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver health effects study. JAMA 282:2215–2219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. König A, Aalten P, Verhey F, Bensadoun G, Petit PD, Robert P et al (2014) A review of current information and communication technologies: can they be used to assess apathy? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 29:345–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. D’Onofrio G, Sancarlo D, Ricciardi F, Ruan Q, Yu Z, Giuliani F, Greco A (2016) Cognitive stimulation and information-communication technologies (ICT) in Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review. In: Garza P (ed) Cognitive control: development, assessment and performance. https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=58756. Nova Science

  21. McKenzie B, Bowen ME, Keys K, Bulat T (2013) Safe home program: a suite of technologies to support extended home care of persons with dementia. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 28(4):348–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Espie CA, Kyle SD, Williams C, Ong JC, Douglas NJ, Hames P et al (2012) A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of online cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic insomnia disorder delivered via an automated media-rich web application. Sleep 35(6):769–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, Hyman BT, Jack CR Jr, Kawas CH et al (2011) The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 7:263–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pilotto A, D’Onofrio G, Benelli E, Zanesco A, Cabello A, Margelí MC, Wanche-Politis S, Seferis K, Sancarlo D, Kilias D (2011) Information and communication technology systems to improve quality of life and safety of Alzheimer’s disease patients: a multicenter international survey. J Alzheimers Dis 23(1):131–141

    Google Scholar 

  25. Caroppo A, Leone A, Siciliano P, Sancarlo D, D’Onofrio G, Giuliani F et al (2014) Cognitive home rehabilitation in Alzheimer’s disease patients by a virtual personal trainer. Ambient assisted living, pp 147–155

    Google Scholar 

  26. Robinson L, Brittain K, Lindsay S, Jackson D, Olivier P (2009) Keeping In Touch Everyday (KITE) project: developing assistive technologies with people with dementia and their carers to promote independence. Int Psychogeriatr 21:494–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Duff P, Dolphin C (2007) Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia—Part 1: development of a methodological approach to the ENABLE cost-benefit analysis. Technol Disabil 19:73–78

    Google Scholar 

  28. Duff P, Dolphin C (2009) Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia—Part 2: results from employing the ENABLE cost-benefit model in practice. Technol Disabil 19:79–90

    Google Scholar 

  29. Virone G, Sixsmith A (2008) Monitoring activity patterns and trends of older adults. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2008:2071–2074

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to the results described in this article has received funding from the European Union Horizons 2020—the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020) under grant agreement 643808 Project MARIO ‘Managing active and healthy aging with use of caring service robots’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grazia D’Onofrio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix 1: Mario Questionnaire on the Use of Companion Robotics

Appendix 1: Mario Questionnaire on the Use of Companion Robotics

  • Section A: Acceptability

  1. 1.

    How Important is that MARIO has a human like appearance?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 2.

    How important is it that MARIO has a human sounding voice?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 3.

    How important is it that MARIO has a familiar voice?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 4.

    How important is it that MARIO has an exterior or covering that people like to touch?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 5.

    How Important is that MARIO height is adjustable?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 6.

    How important is it that MARIO can communicate non verbally e.g. smiling or raising eyebrows?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 7.

    How important is it that MARIO displays emotional expression?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 8.

    To what extent do you think it likely that your patients would agree to having MARIO for daily assistance in the home to remind them to take medicines, eat and drink, buy food, a tracking mechanism to find easily Important personal objects (keys, teeth, purse or glasses), etc.:

Not at all likely

Slightly likely

Moderately likely

Very likely

Extremely likely

  1. 9.

    To what extent do you think that your patients would agree to having MARIO monitor and track their movements in the house, or outside the house?

Not at all likely

Slightly likely

Moderately likely

Very likely

Extremely likely

  1. 10.

    To what extent do you think that your patients would agree to having MARIO provide entertainment, mind games (e.g. showing pictures of family members), a reminder for favourite TV programmes etc.

Not at all likely

Slightly likely

Moderately likely

Very likely

Extremely likely

  1. 11.

    To what extent do you think that your patients would accept MARIO as to stay connected to and communicate with family, friends and professional caregivers, (e.g. an easy to use touch screen with pictures and names of the family members)?

Not at all likely

Slightly likely

Moderately likely

Very likely

Extremely likely

  1. 12.

    How important is it that the robot can be quiet?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 13.

    How important is it that the robot takes up no more room than a person while moving about?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 14.

    How important is it that the robot require internet connection (house without broadband coverage)?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 15.

    Please rank in order of importance from 1–7 (with 1 being the most Important and 7 being the least important) the features of appearance listed below:

Appearance features

Ranking 1–7

a. Human like appearance

 

b. Human sounding voice

 

c. Familiar voice

 

d. Has an exterior or covering that people like to touch

 

e. Adjustable height

 

f. Displays emotional expression

 

g. Communicates non verbally

 
  • Section B: Functionality

  1. 1.

    How important is it that MARIO has face recognition?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 2.

    How important is it that MARIO has voice recognition?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 3.

    How important is it that MARIO can distinguish individuals within a group?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 4.

    How important is it that MARIO has the capacity for natural dialogue?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 5.

    How important is it that MARIO has a detachable device that can be used outside the house (e.g. GPS function for shopping)?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 6.

    How Important is it that MARIO can provide prompts for appointments/social events/date and time?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 7.

    How important is it that MARIO can store and utilise information from a person’s life history?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 8.

    How important is it that MARIO can utilise multimedia to communicate (e.g. read a book, Skype, play music)?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 9.

    How important is it that MARIO has voice activation?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 10.

    How important is it that MARIO has gesture recognition?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 11.

    How important is it that MARIO could help subjects with walking or stand-up?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 12.

    How important is it that MARIO can understand dialects?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately important

Very important

Extremely important

  1. 13.

    How useful would a detachable device be that allowed MARIO to provide advice and support when you are ou of the house? Eg (GPS function for finding the way to the shops and back home again)

Not at all useful

Slightly useful

Moderately useful

Very useful

Extremely useful

  • Section C: Support Devices

To what extent do you think that the following support devices in MARIO could be useful for your patients:

1. Devices for monitoring bed-rest and movements of your patient, such as integrated video/sound systems and imbalance sensors, inside of his/her home to reduce the risk of falls

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

2. Devices for monitoring the medication use, such as pill dispenser and/or time schedule reminder system, to avoid errors in drug use by your patients

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

3. Devices for monitoring the ambient environmental conditions, (i.e. security systems to control temperature, gas-smoke, lights, humidity, entrance-exits of main doors etc.) to improve the safety and wellness of your patients

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

4. Devices for regulating heating, humidity, lighting, TV channel

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

5. Devices for undertaking comprehensive geriatric assessment

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

6. Devices that link to care planning

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

7. Devices for monitoring physiological deterioration

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

8. Devices for monitoring cognitive deterioration

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

  • Section D: Impact of Mario

To what extent do you think MARIO could be useful in order to:

1. Improve the quality of life of your patients

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

2. Improve the quality of care that you provide to your patients

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

3. Improve the safety in the daily living activities of your patients

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

4. Carry out emergency communication/alert messages

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

5. Improve the care provided; home-based physical and/or cognitive rehabilitation programs of your patients

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

6. Detect when a person is becoming more lonely and isolated

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

7. Detect health status changes

\( \square \) Not useful at all

\( \square \) YES, low level of usefulness

\( \square \) YES, moderately useful

\( \square \) YES, very useful

  1. 8.

    What other functions do you think MARIO should have to increase independent living for your patients?

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sancarlo, D. et al. (2017). MARIO Project: A Multicenter Survey About Companion Robot Acceptability in Caregivers of Patients with Dementia. In: Cavallo, F., Marletta, V., Monteriù, A., Siciliano, P. (eds) Ambient Assisted Living. ForItAAL 2016. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 426. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54283-6_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54283-6_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54282-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54283-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics