Robots to assist daily activities: views of older adults with Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robots have the potential to both enable older adults with dementia to perform daily activities with greater independence, and provide support to caregivers. This study explored perspectives of older adults with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their caregivers on robots that provide stepwise prompting to complete activities in the home. METHODS: Ten dyads participated: Older adults with mild-to-moderate AD and difficulty completing activity steps, and their family caregivers. Older adults were prompted by a tele-operated robot to wash their hands in the bathroom and make a cup of tea in the kitchen. Caregivers observed interactions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted individually. Transcribed interviews were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Three themes summarized responses to robot interactions: contemplating a future with assistive robots, considering opportunities with assistive robots, and reflecting on implications for social relationships. Older adults expressed opportunities for robots to help in daily activities, were open to the idea of robotic assistance, but did not want a robot. Caregivers identified numerous opportunities and were more open to robots. Several wanted a robot, if available. Positive consequences of robots in caregiving scenarios could include decreased frustration, stress, and relationship strain, and increased social interaction via the robot. A negative consequence could be decreased interaction with caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have investigated in-depth perspectives of older adults with dementia and their caregivers following direct interaction with an assistive prompting robot. To fulfill the potential of robots, continued dialogue between users and developers, and consideration of robot design and caregiving relationship factors are necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it