Formal And Informal Caregıvers' Intention to Use Robotic Technologies in Elderly Care Services
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63556/tisej.2026.1898Keywords:
Elder care, Robotic technology, Care labor, Care relationships, Formal and informal careAbstract
The rapid aging of the population and the increasing demand for care labour have made the integration of robotic technologies into elder care a critical debate area. This qualitative multiple case study aims to comparatively examine how caregivers' intention to use robotic technologies in elder care are shaped through in-depth interviews with 12 formal and 6 informal caregiver participants. Obtained data were examined through thematic analysis and five main themes shaping intention to use were identified: learnability, functional expectations, personalization and interactional expectations, care relationships and the human dimension, and technology-driven professional concerns. Findings indicate that learning approaches of groups differ along a confidence–anxiety axis. While both groups expect high utility in physical tasks, they agree that robots cannot replace human touch in emotional care due to robots’ cold and mechanical nature. However, risks such as social isolation, emotional deprivation, and privacy violations are emphasized. Findings revealed that the perceived genderlessness of the robot could lead to functioning as a facilitator for some caregivers while serving as a barrier for others. Despite expectations of labour market shrinkage, formal caregivers do not exhibit technological resistance; instead, they demonstrate high intention to use, driven by focus on physical benefits and fatalistic perspectives.
References
Alaiad, A., & Zhou, L. (2014). The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(11), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.07.003
Bartneck, C., Kulić, D., Croft, E., & Zoghbi, S. (2009). Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3
Bedaf, S., Gelderblom, G. J., & de Witte, L. (2015). Overview and categorization of robots supporting independent living of elderly people: What activities do they support and how far have they developed. Assistive Technology, 27(2), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2014.978916
Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, C., Patience, A., Knock, B., Kerse, N., Day, K., & MacDonald, B. A. (2012). Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 31(2), 115-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2011.00551.x
Bursa Yatırım Destek Ofisi. (t.y.). Neden Bursa? Erişim adresi: https://bursainvest.gov.tr/tr/neden-bursa/ (Erişim tarihi: 20.02.2026)
Charmes, J. (2019). The unpaid care work and the labour market: An analysis of time use data based on the latest world compilation of time-use surveys. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office.
Coco, K., Kangasniemi, M., & Rantanen, T. (2018). Care personnel’s attitudes and fears toward care robots in elderly care: A comparison of data from the care personnel in Finland and Japan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50(6), 634-644. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12435
Çonka, B. (2024). Multifaceted analysis of older adults’ and caretakers’ attitudes toward social robots (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Bilkent Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Daştan, B. ve Hintistan, S. (2021). Yaşlı bakımında ortam destekli yaşam teknolojilerinin kullanımı: Geleneksel derleme. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Nursing Sciences, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.5336/nurses.2021-81726
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
de Graaf, M. M. A., ben Allouch, S., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2019). Why would I use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Human-Computer Interaction, 34(2), 115–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1312406
DeepL SE. (2026). DeepL Translator [Çevrimiçi makine çevirisi aracı]. Erişim adresi: https://www.deepl.com
Draper, H., Sorell, T., Bedaf, S., Syrdal, D. S., Gutierrez-Ruiz, C., Duclos, A., & Amirabdollahian, F. (2014). Ethical dimensions of human-robot interactions in the care of older people: Insights from 21 focus groups convened in UK, France and the Netherlands. Social Robotics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8755, 135-145.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Erebak, S. & Turgut, T. (2018). Robots as our new coworkers: The influence of anthropomorphism on employees’ preference of levels of automation. İş’te Davranış Dergisi, 1(3), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.25203/idd.352463
Erebak, S., & Turgut, T. (2019). Caregivers’ attitudes toward potential robot coworkers in elder care. Cognition, Technology and Work, 21(2), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0512-0
Frennert, S., Aminoff, H., & Östlund, B. (2020). Technological frames and care robots in eldercare. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(2), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00641-0
Google. (2026). NotebookLM [Yapay zekâ destekli not alma ve metin işleme aracı]. Erişim adresi: https://notebooklm.google.com
Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: The Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hofstede, B. M., Askari, S. I., Lukkien, D., Gosetto, L., Alberts, J. W., Tesfay, E. ... Nap, H. H. (2025). A field study to explore user experiences with socially assistive robots for older adults: emphasizing the need for more interactivity and personalisation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2025.1537272
Huzurevleri ile Huzurevi Yaşlı Bakım ve Rehabilitasyon Merkezleri Yönetmeliği (2001). T.C. Resmî Gazete, Sayı: 24325, 21 Şubat 2001.
Ide, H., Suwa, S., Akuta, Y., Kodate, N., Tsujimura, M., Ishimaru, M. ... Yu, W. (2024). Developing a model to explain users’ ethical perceptions regarding the use of care robots in home care: A cross-sectional study in Ireland, Finland, and Japan. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2023.105137
Johansson-Pajala, R. M., Thommes, K., Hoppe, J. A., Tuisku, O., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S. ... Gustafsson, C. (2020). Care robot orientation: What, who and how? Potential users’ perceptions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(5), 1103–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00619-y
Lee, S. H., Kim, J. S., & Yu, S. (2025). The impact of care robots on older adults: A systematic review. Geriatric Nursing, 65, 103507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2025.103507
Moyle, W., Jones, C., Cooke, M., O’Dwyer, S., Sung, B., & Drummond, S. (2014). Connecting the person with dementia and family: a feasibility study of a telepresence robot. BMC Geriatrics, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-7
Nield, L., Jackson, C., Tarpani, R. R. Z., Story, M., di Nuovo, A., & Fowler-Davis, S. (2026). What social and environmental considerations are important for socially assistive robotic adoption for pre-frail older adults at home: a scoping review, life cycle assessment and survey. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06892-8
Nolan, A. (2021). Making life richer, easier and healthier: Robots, their future and public policy (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 117). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Kanda, T., & Kato, K. (2006). Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 437-454. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.7.3.14nom
OECD. (2025). Health at a glance 2025: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/8f9e3f98-en
OECD. (t.y.). Ageing and long-term care. Erişim adresi: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/ageing-and-long-term-care.html
Özkurt, V. (2018). Bakım sürecinde geronteknolojinin etkin kullanımı: bakım verenlerin algılarına ilişkin nitel bir çalışma (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Antalya.
Parks, J. A. (2010). Lifting the burden of women’s care work: Should robots replace the “human touch”? Hypatia, 25(1), 100–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01086.x
Parviainen, J., Turja, T., & Van Aerschot, L. (2019). Social robots and human touch in care: The perceived usefulness of robot assistance among healthcare professionals. In O. Korn (Ed.), Social Robots: Technological, Societal and Ethical Aspects of Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 187-204). Cham: Springer Nature.
Pino, M., Boulay, M., Jouen, F., & Rigaud, A. S. (2015). Are we ready for robots that care for us? Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 7, 141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00141
Reegård, K., Fernandes, A., & Bloch, M. (2025). Perceptions of technology-related job insecurity among healthcare personnel: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Social Robotics, 17, 1693-1705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-025-01283-w
Robinson, H., MacDonald, B. A., Kerse, N., & Broadbent, E. (2013). Suitability of healthcare robots for a dementia unit and suggested improvements. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 14(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2012.09.006
Samuel, G., Correa, M., Todd, C., & Tinker, A. (2023). What contribution do robots make to the care of older people? A scoping review. Gerontechnology, 22(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2023.22.2.sam.08
Sharkey, A. & Sharkey, N. (2012). Granny and the robots: Ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6
Sorell, T. & Draper, H. (2014). Robot carers, ethics, and older people. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(3), 183-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-014-9344-7
Sparrow, R. (2002). The march of the robot dogs. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(4), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021386708994
Sparrow, R. (2016). Robots in aged care: a dystopian future? AI and Society, 31(4), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0625-4
Sullins, J. P. (2012). Robots, love, and sex: The ethics of building a love machine. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(4), 398–409. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2012.31
Terkeş, N. ve Bektaş, H. (2016). Yaşlı sağlığı ve teknoloji kullanımı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi (DEUHFED), 9(4), 153–159.
Turja, T., Van Aerschot, L., Särkikoski, T., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Finnish healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards robots: Reflections on a population sample. Nursing Open, 5(3), 300-309. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.138
Turja, T., Aaltonen, I., Taipale, S., & Oksanen, A. (2020). Robot acceptance model for care (RAM-care): A principled approach to the intention to use care robots. Information & Management, 57(5), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103220
Türkeli, E. (2021). Toplum 5.0 döneminde yaşlı bakım yönetimi. G. İ. Sönmeztürk Bolatan (Ed.), Endüstri 5.0 – Dijital Toplum içinde (s. 153–174). İstanbul: Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2015). Zaman kullanım araştırması 2014–2015: Yaşlı bakımı ve sıklığının cinsiyete göre dağılımı [Veri seti]. Erişim adresi: https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/statistical-themes?q=ya%C5%9Fl%C4%B1 (Erişim tarihi: 20.02.2026).
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2024a). Yıllara, yaş grubuna ve cinsiyete göre nüfus, genel nüfus sayımları – Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi (ADNKS) [Veri seti]. Erişim adresi: https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/tr/databrowser/tuik/categories/11/11_1/11_1_1/TR,DF_ADNKS_T16,1.0 (Erişim tarihi: 20.02.2026).
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2024b). Bölgesel gayrisafi yurt içi hasıla (GSYH), il düzeyinde [Veri seti]. Erişim adresi: https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr (Erişim tarihi: 20.02.2026).
Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2025). İstatistiklerle yaşlılar, 2024 [Elektronik bülten]. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Yaslilar-2024-54079 (Erişim tarihi: 20.02.2026).
van Kemenade, M. A. M., Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2015). Robots humanize care: Moral concerns versus witnessed benefits for the elderly. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Health Informatics (HEALTHINF 2015) (pp. 648–653). https://doi.org/10.5220/0005287706480653
van Wynsberghe, A. (2013). Designing robots for care: Care centered value-sensitive design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 407-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9343-6
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Verelst, L. (2019). Technology adoption of service robots in the elderly care sector (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Ghent Üniversitesi, Gent, Belçika.
Weßel, M., Ellerich-Groppe, N., & Schweda, M. (2023). Gender stereotyping of robotic systems in eldercare: An exploratory analysis of ethical problems and possible solutions. International Journal of Social Robotics, 15(11), 1963–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00854-x
Yamazaki, R., Nishio, S., Nagata, Y., Satake, Y., Suzuki, M., Kanemoto, H. ... Ikeda, M. (2023). Long-term effect of the absence of a companion robot on older adults: A preliminary pilot study. Frontiers in Computer Science, 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1129506
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Third Sector Social Economic Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
