Skip to content

Affordable Mobile Robots for the Elderly

PFI: BIC Affordable and Mobile Assistive Robots for Elderly Care

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02807506
Enrollment
53
Registered
2016-06-21
Start date
2014-07-31
Completion date
2022-12-30
Last updated
2023-03-21

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Aging

Keywords

elders, robotics, low income population, activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, social robotics, stroke, aged, Retirement, Housing for elderly, Homes for the aged

Brief summary

This project develops and tests the use of service robots to track health of the elderly over time. The objectives are to develop a low-cost mobile manipulator capable of a limited set of elder- relevant manipulation tasks (e.g. picking up dropped items). The investigators will visualize and model the use of the service robot during deployments at an elder care facility. Feedback from focus groups with elders and clinicians will inform the necessary engineering innovation.

Detailed description

The goal is to develop in three stages a new affordable robot with the participation of Living Independently for Elders (LIFE) members and clinicians. The robot will be developed by a multidisciplinary team headed by Dr. Yim at University of Pennsylvania (UPENN) (PI), Dr. Tessa Lau at Savioke Corp, and Drs. Johnson and Cacchionne at UPENN PM&R and UPENN Nursing, respectively. The aim is to build a low-cost robot platform that will focus on the simple, but key, repetitive, data-driven tasks that robots do well. Rather than attempt to create a robot helper that mimics humans, the aim is to free human caregivers from the time-consuming tasks that robots can accomplish with facility, thereby allowing humans to focus on tasks that humans do best (i.e. human contact). Participatory reviews of the developed prototypes will be completed at each stage (each year) with the LIFE members and clinicians. There are three research questions the investigators hope to answer all while building an effective system to synergistically satisfy the business needs: R1) Although activities of daily living (ADLs) for elder health have previously been documented and categorized, no research has been done to characterize them from the perspective of their feasibility of automation using an affordable mobile manipulation robot. How can known ADLs be characterized according to how much they would benefit from robotic assistance given varying levels of robot capabilities (mobility, limited manipulation, full manipulation)? R2) A manipulator arm must be safe, affordable, and performant enough to assist in ADLs for elder heath. What new breakthroughs are required to develop new manipulation technology that satisfies these constraints? R3) A data-driven service robotics What are the concomitant key usability and acceptance of service features required system has the potential to affect elder health in a positive way. How can predictive service robotics best be used to maintain and improve elder health? Which specific robot behaviors have the most impact on elders' well-being?

Interventions

DEVICEMobile Service Robot

The goal is to build a low-cost mobile service robot with an arm that will focus on the simple, but key, repetitive, data-driven tasks that robots do well. Rather than attempt to create a robot helper that mimics humans, the goal is to free human caregivers from the time-consuming tasks that robots can accomplish with facility, thereby allowing humans to focus on tasks that humans do best (i.e. human contact).

OTHERSurvey

Observe Elders, Clinicians and Caregiver's survey, interview and observational responses to stage-wise experimental deployments of a mobile service robot.

Sponsors

U.S. National Science Foundation
CollaboratorFED
University of Pennsylvania
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Elders, age 55 and older,who are members of Living Independently For Elders (LIFE) run by the University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing and their caregivers. * Elders at Kearsley or Mercy Douglas who are 62 years and older, in imminent risk of a nursing home placement, attends LIFE center daily (day program), able to have activities of daily living (ADL) needs met by caregivers, able to pay required rent for apartment, and able to function safely in community with other elders. * Savioke may conduct additional focus groups at The Forum at Rancho San Antonio a Continuing Care Retirement Community located in Silicon Valley. * Clinicians will be recruited from the clinical staff working at LIFE, Kearsley, and Mercy Douglas which consists of primary care physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners, licensed social workers, and physical and occupational therapists. * Caregivers will be recruited from the clinical staff working at LIFE, Kearsley, and Mercy Douglas which consists of certified nursing assistants (CNAs).

Exclusion criteria

* Unable to cognitively give consent * Unable to understand the study or refuse to comply with procedures

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Usability Scale for Deployment 11 session, about 1 hour in lengthActivities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Usability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Usability survey scored from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most favorable response. A number greater than 68 is good.
Usability Scale for Deployment 21 session, about 1 hour in lengthActivities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Usability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Usability survey scored out of 7. Users ranked tasks on a scale of 1-7, 7 being very usable.
Sociability Scale for Deployment 11 session, about 1 hour in lengthActivities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Sociability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Sociability survey scored from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most favorable response. A number greater than 68 is good.
Sociability Scale for Deployment 21 session, about 1 hour in lengthActivities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Sociability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Sociability survey scored out of 7. Users ranked tasks on a scale of 1-7, 7 being very usable.
Acceptability Scale for Deployment 11 session, about 1 hour in lengthActivities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Acceptability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Acceptability survey scored from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most favorable response. A number greater than 68 is good.
Acceptability Scale for Deployment 21 session, about 1 hour in lengthActivities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Acceptability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Acceptability survey scored out of 7. Users ranked tasks on a scale of 1-7, 7 being very usable.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Elders, caregivers, and clinicians were recommended and recruited to the study from the same recruitment site.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Clinicians, Caregivers and Elders
Observe Elders, Clinicians and Caregiver's survey, interview and observational responses to stage-wise experimental deployments of a mobile service robot - 1st concept, 2nd mobile base, and 3rd mobile base with arm in daily supportive tasks Mobile Service Robot: The goal is to build a low-cost mobile service robot with an arm that will focus on the simple, but key, repetitive, data-driven tasks that robots do well. Rather than attempt to create a robot helper that mimics humans, the goal is to free human caregivers from the time-consuming tasks that robots can accomplish with facility, thereby allowing humans to focus on tasks that humans do best (i.e. human contact).
53
Total53

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicClinicians, Caregivers and Elders
Age, Categorical
Caregivers
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Caregivers
>=65 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Caregivers
Between 18 and 65 years
6 Participants
Age, Categorical
Clinicians
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Clinicians
>=65 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Clinicians
Between 18 and 65 years
8 Participants
Age, Categorical
Elders
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Elders
>=65 years
33 Participants
Age, Categorical
Elders
Between 18 and 65 years
6 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers
Asian
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers
Black or African American
6 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers
More than one race
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregivers
White
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Clinicians
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Clinicians
Asian
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Clinicians
Black or African American
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Clinicians
More than one race
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Clinicians
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Clinicians
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Clinicians
White
7 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Elders
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Elders
Asian
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Elders
Black or African American
38 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Elders
More than one race
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Elders
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Elders
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Elders
White
0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Caregivers
Female
6 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Caregivers
Male
0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Clinicians
Female
7 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Clinicians
Male
1 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Elders
Female
21 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Elders
Male
18 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 53
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 53
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 53

Outcome results

Primary

Acceptability Scale for Deployment 1

Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Acceptability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Acceptability survey scored from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most favorable response. A number greater than 68 is good.

Time frame: 1 session, about 1 hour in length

Population: Elders above the age of 55 years old who participated in the water delivery and walking tasks (Aim 2, Deployment 1).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Acceptability Scale for Deployment 1Water Delivery Task with Robot76.56 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.63
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Acceptability Scale for Deployment 1Walking Task with Robot82.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.116
Primary

Acceptability Scale for Deployment 2

Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Acceptability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Acceptability survey scored out of 7. Users ranked tasks on a scale of 1-7, 7 being very usable.

Time frame: 1 session, about 1 hour in length

Population: Elders above the age of 55 years old who participated in the gaming tasks (Aim 2, Deployment 2).

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Acceptability Scale for Deployment 26.608 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.056
Primary

Sociability Scale for Deployment 1

Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Sociability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Sociability survey scored from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most favorable response. A number greater than 68 is good.

Time frame: 1 session, about 1 hour in length

Population: Elders above the age of 55 years old who participated in the water delivery and walking tasks (Aim 2, Deployment 1).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Sociability Scale for Deployment 1Water Delivery Task with Robot59.38 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.97
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Sociability Scale for Deployment 1Walking Task with Robot82.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.96
Primary

Sociability Scale for Deployment 2

Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Sociability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Sociability survey scored out of 7. Users ranked tasks on a scale of 1-7, 7 being very usable.

Time frame: 1 session, about 1 hour in length

Population: Elders above the age of 55 years old who participated in the gaming tasks (Aim 2, Deployment 2).

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Sociability Scale for Deployment 26.882 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.332
Primary

Usability Scale for Deployment 1

Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Usability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Usability survey scored from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most favorable response. A number greater than 68 is good.

Time frame: 1 session, about 1 hour in length

Population: Elders above the age of 55 years old who participated in the water delivery and walking tasks (Aim 2, Deployment 1).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Usability Scale for Deployment 1Water Delivery with Robot78.13 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.608
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Usability Scale for Deployment 1Walking Delivery Task with Robot77.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.167
Primary

Usability Scale for Deployment 2

Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) assistance, feasibility of automation of manipulator and arm measured by surveys and observation of participants in focus group. Usability of robot system for walking and water delivery tasks. Usability survey scored out of 7. Users ranked tasks on a scale of 1-7, 7 being very usable.

Time frame: 1 session, about 1 hour in length

Population: Elders above the age of 55 years old who participated in the gaming tasks (Aim 2, Deployment 2).

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Aim 2: Deployment 1 (Elders)Usability Scale for Deployment 26.266 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.204

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026