The value of social robots supporting informal care: a discrete choice experiment among informal caregivers
Petra Baji et al.
Abstract
To elicit informal caregivers’ preferences and willingness to pay for using social robots to support informal care provision. We conducted an exploratory online discrete choice experiment in 2024 with 400 informal caregivers in Hungary and 400 Poland. We used a D-efficient fractional design with 40 pairs of robot profiles blocked into four sets, randomly assigned to respondents. Robots were described by appearance, size, function, availability of remote monitoring, availability of a built-in emergency call system, and monthly cost. Responses were analysed using multinomial logit models, adjusting for caregivers’ and care recipients’ characteristics such as EQ-5D-5L and CarerQol scores. The most valued robots were those helping with everyday tasks, followed by robots performing nursing tasks. Compared with robots helping with mobility, respondents were willing to pay, on average, 372 and 206 EUR more per month for such robots in Hungary and 402/182 EUR more in Poland. Caregivers were willing to pay monthly 119/94 EUR more for the option of remote monitoring and 124/70 EUR more for a built-in emergency call system. Medium-size and robot-like appearance was preferred, and animal-like robots were strongly disliked in both countries. Preferences varied by caregiver characteristics, and caregiving situations. Only 7% (Hungary) and 4% (Poland) would have not hired the chosen robots in real life. Openness to use robots in informal care was high in both countries, particularly for everyday and nursing tasks. Our findings provide valuable guidance for the design, development and implementation of assistive robots in home care.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.