Open Access
ITM Web Conf.
Volume 41, 2022
International Conference on Exploring Service Science (IESS 2.2)
Article Number 02002
Number of page(s) 17
Section Service Science in a Smart Society: Design Research on Smart Working
Published online 08 February 2022
  1. Mitzner, T. L., Chen, L.T., Kemp, C.C., & Rogers, W. A.. Identifying the Potential for Robotics to Assist Older Adults in Different Living Environments. Int J Soc Robot, 6(2), 213-227 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdi, J., Al-Hindawi, A., Ng, T., & Vizcaychipi, M. P. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open, 8, 1-20 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  3. Christoforou, G.E., Panayides, S.A., Avgousti, S., Masouras, P., & Pattichis, C. S. An Overview of Assistive Robotics and Technologies for Elderly Care. In: Henriques J., Neves N., de Carvalho P. (eds) XV Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing – MEDICON 2019, 76, 971-976. (2020) [Google Scholar]
  4. Kyrarini, M., Lygerakis, F., Rajavenkatanarayanan, A., Sevastopoulos, C., Nambiappan,R.H., Chaitanya,K.K., Badu,R.A., Mathew, J., & Makedon, F. A Survey of Robots in Healthcare. Technologies, 9, 8, 1-26. (2021) [Google Scholar]
  5. Lee, J-Y., Song,A.Y., Jung,Y.J., Kim,J.H., Kim,R.B., Do, H-K., & Lim, J-Y. Nurses’ needs for care robots in integrated nursing care services. J Adv Nurs, 74, 2094-2105. (2018) [Google Scholar]
  6. Broadbent, E., Garett, J., Jepsen, N., Ogilvie,L.V., Ahn,S.H., Robinson, H., Peri, K., Kerse, N., Rouse, P., Pillai, A., & Macdonald, B. Using Robots at Home to Support Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR, 20(2), 1-15 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  7. Kim, J. Use of Robots as a Creative Approach in Healthcare ICT. Health Informatics Research, 24(3), 155-156 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  8. O’Brolcha ́in, F. Robots and people with dementia: Unintended consequences and moral hazard. Nursing Ethics, 26(4), 962-972 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  9. Hosseini,H.S., & Goher, K. M. Personal Care Robots for Older Adults: An Overview. Asian Social Science, 13(1), 11-19 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  10. Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., Tuisku, O., Gustafsson, C., Johansson-Pajala, R-M., Thommes, K., Hoppe,A.J., & Melkas, H. (2020). Embedding care robots into society and practice: Socio-technical considerations. Futures, 122, 1-15. [Google Scholar]
  11. Melkas, H., Hennala, L., Pekkarinen, S., & Kyrki, V. Impacts of robot implementation on care personnel and clients in elderly-care institutions. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 134, 1-6 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  12. Bednar,M.P., & Welch, C. Socio-technical perspectives on smart working: Creating meaningful and sustainable systems. Information Systems Frontiers, 1-18 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  13. Tuisku, O., Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., & Melkas, H. “Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”: The publicity around a robotic innovation in elderly care. Information Technology and People. (2018). [Google Scholar]
  14. Johansson-Pajala, R-M., & Gustafsson, C. Significant challenges when introducing care robots in Swedish elder care. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1-13 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  15. Céspedes, N., Irfan, B., Senft, E., Cifuentes,A.C., Gutierrez,F.L., Rincon-Roncancio, M., Belpaeme, T., & Múnera, M., A Socially Assistive Robot for Long-Term Cardiac Rehabilitation in The Real Word. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 15, 633246, 1-19 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  16. Oña, E. D., Garcia-Haro, J. M., Jardón, A., & Balaguer, C. Robotics in Health Care: Perspectives of Robot-Aided Interventions in Clinical Practice for Rehabilitation of Upper Limbs. Applied Sciences, 9, 1-27 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  17. Lukasik, S., Tobis, S., Kropinska, S., & Suwalska, A., Role of Assistive Robots in the Care of Older People: Survey Study Among Medical and Nursing Students. JMIR, 22(8), 1-10 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  18. Shishehgar, M., Kerr, D., & Blake, J. The effectiveness of various robotic technologies in assisting older adults. Health Informatics Journal, 25(3), 892-918, (2019). [Google Scholar]
  19. Luxton, D. D. Recommendations for the ethical use and design of artificial intelligent care providers. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 62(1), 110.(2014). [Google Scholar]
  20. Servaty, R., Kersten, A., Brukamp, K., Mohler, R., & Mueller, M. Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review. BMJ Open, 10, 1-11 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  21. Christoforou,G.E.,Avgousti, S., Ramdani, N., Novales, C., & Panayides, A. S. The Upcoming Role for Nursing and Assistive Robotics: Opportunities and Challenges Ahead. Frontiers in Digital Health, 2, 585656, 1-13 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  22. Pirhonen, J., Melkas, H., Laitinen, A., & Pekkarinen, S. Could robots strengthen the sense of autonomy of older people residing in assisted living facilities?—A future‐oriented study. Ethics and information Technology, 22, 151-162 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  23. Alaiad, A., & Zhou, L. The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical investigation. International journal of medical informatics, 83(11), 825-840 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  24. Fasola, J., & Mataric ́, M. J. A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. Journal of Human-Robot Interact, 2(2), 3-32. (2013). [Google Scholar]
  25. Hung, L., Liu, C., Woldum, E., Au-Yeung, A., Berndt, A., Wallsworth, C., Horne, N., Gregorio, M., Mann, J., & Chaudhury, H. The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review. BMC Geriatrics, 19, 1-10 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  26. Flandorfer, P. Population Ageing and Socially Assistive Robots for Elderly Persons: The Importance of Sociodemographic Factors for User Acceptance. International Journal of Population Research, 1-14 (2012). [Google Scholar]
  27. Birks, M., Bodak, M., Barlas, J., Harwood, J., & Pether, M. (2016). Robotic Seals as Therapeutic Tools in an Aged Care Facility: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Aging Research, 2016, 1-7 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  28. Céspedes, N., Raigoso, D., Múnera, M., and Cifuentes, C. A. Long-Term Social Human-Robot Interaction for Neurorehabilitation: Robots as a Tool to Support Gait Therapy in the Pandemic. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 15, 612034, 1-12 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  29. Bradwell,L.H., Winnington, R., Thill, S., & Jones, R. B. Ethical perceptions towards real-world use of companion robots with older people and people with dementia: survey opinions among younger adults. BMC Geriatrics, 20, 1-10 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  30. Hersh, M. Overcoming Barriers and Increasing Independence – Service Robots for Elderly and Disabled People. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 12, 1-33 (2015). [Google Scholar]
  31. Agrigoroaie,M.R., & Tapus, A. Developing a healthcare robot with personalized behaviors and social skills for the elderly, in International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (Christchurch) (2016). [Google Scholar]
  32. Wachsmuth, I. Robots Like Me: Challenges and Ethical Issues in Aged Care. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-3 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  33. Goh,M.J., Gao, G., and Agarwal, R. “Evolving Work Routines: Adaptive Routinization of Information Technology in Healthcare,” ISR (22:3), pp. 565-585 (2011). [Google Scholar]
  34. Pohl, M. Robotic Systems in Healthcare with Particular Reference to Innovation in the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ — An Ethical Challenge for Management —. Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies, 8, 17-33 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  35. Gratch, J., Wang, N., Gerten, J., Fast, E., & Duffy, R. Creating rapport with virtual agents. In C. Pelachaud, et al. (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents (pp. 125-138). Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg (2007). [Google Scholar]
  36. Picard, R. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Mansouri, N., & Goher, K. Towards Ethical Framework for Personal Care Robots: Review and Reflection. Asian Social Science, 12(10), 152-162 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  38. Vichitkraivin, P., & Naenna, T. Factors of healthcare robot adoption by medical staff in Thai government hospitals. Health and Technology, 1-13 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  39. Boumans, R., Van Meulen, F., Hindriks. K., Neerincx, M., & Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., Robot for health data acquisition among older adults: a pilot randomised controlled crossover trial. BMJ Qual Saf, 28, 793-799 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  40. Mois, G., & Beer, J. M. The Role of Healthcare Robotics in Providing Support to Older Adults: a Socio-ecological Perspective. Current Geriatrics Reports, 9, 82-89 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  41. Bodenheimer, T., & Sinsky, C.. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. The Annals of Family Medicine, 12(6), 573-576 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  42. Tonn,E.B., & Stiefel, D. Anticipating the unanticipated-unintended consequences of scientific and technological purposive actions. World Futures Review, 11(1), 19-50. (2019). [Google Scholar]
  43. Harrison,I.M., Koppel, R., & Bar-Lev, S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—an interactive sociotechnical analysis. JAMIA, 14(5), 542-549. (2007) [Google Scholar]
  44. Campbell,M.E., Sittig,F.D., Ash,S.J., Guappone,P.K., & Dykstra, R. H. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. JAMIA, 13(5), 547-556 (2006). [Google Scholar]
  45. Samad-Soltani, T., Rezaei-Hachesu, P., & Ghazisaeedi, M. Pervasive decision support systems in healthcare using intelligent robots in social media. Iranian journal of public health, 46(1), 148 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  46. Scoglio,A.A., Reilly,D.E., Gorman,A.J., & Drebing, C. E. Use of social robots in mental health and well-being research: systematic review. JMIR, 21(7), e13322 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  47. Strong,M.D., and Volkoff, O. “Understanding Organization–Enterprise System Fit: A Path to Theorizing the Information Technology Artifact,” MISQ (34:4), pp. 731-756 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  48. Pasmore, W., Winby, S., Mohrman,A.S., & Vanasse, R. Reflections: sociotechnical systems design and organization change. Journal of Change Management, 19(2), 67-85 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  49. Krings,J.B., & Weinberger, N. Assistant without Master? Some Conceptual Implications of Assistive Robotics in Health Care. Technologies, 6(1), 13 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  50. Bostrom, R.P. & Heinen, J.S. MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. Part I: The causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), pp. 17. (1977) [Google Scholar]
  51. Read,J.G., Salmon,M.P., Lenné, M. G., & Stanton, N. A. (2015).Designing sociotechnical systems with cognitive work analysis: putting theory back into practice. Ergonomics, 58(5), 822-851 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., Elbanna, A.: The Sociotechnical Axis of Cohesion for IS discipline: its historical legacy and its continued relevance. MIS Q. 43, 695–719 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  53. Catchpole, K., Bisantz, A., Hallbeck,S.M., Weigl, M., Randell, R., Kossack, M., & Anger, J. T. Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: Lessons from studies ‘in the Wild’. Applied ergonomics, 78, 270-276 (2019). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. Grüneberg, P. Empowering Patients in Interactive Unity with Machines: Engineering the HAL (Hybrid Assistive Limb) Robotic Rehabilitation System. In Humans and Devices in Medical Contexts (pp. 255-280). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore (2021). [Google Scholar]
  55. Kendall, E., Oh, S., Amsters, D., Whitehead, M., Hua, J., Robinson, P., .. & Lightfoot, B. HabITec: A sociotechnical space for promoting the application of technology to rehabilitation. Societies, 9(4), 74 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  56. Pekkarinen, S., Melkas, H., & Hyypiä, M. Elderly Care and Digital Services: Toward a Sustainable Sociotechnical Transition. In Human-Centered Digitalization and Services (pp. 259-284). Springer, Singapore (2019). [Google Scholar]
  57. Blume, S., Galis, V., & Pineda, A. V. Introduction: STS and disability. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(1), 98-104 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  58. Jovanović, M., De Angeli, A., McNeill, A., & Coventry, L. User requirements for inclusive technology for older adults. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1-19 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  59. Badr,G.N., & Asmar, M. K. Meta Principles of Technology Accessibility Design for Users with Learning Disabilities: Towards Inclusion of the Differently Enabled. In Exploring Digital Ecosystems (pp. 195-209). Springer, Cham (2020). [Google Scholar]
  60. Pekkarinen, S., & Melkas, H. Welfare state transition in the making: Focus on the niche-regime interaction in Finnish elderly care services. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 240-253 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  61. Tan,Y.S., & Taeihagh, A. Governing the adoption of robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care in Singapore. Policy and society, 1-21 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  62. Badr,G.N., Sorrentino, M., & De Marco, M. Health information technology and caregiver interaction: building healthy ecosystems. In International Conference on Exploring Service Science (pp. 316-329). Springer, Cham (2018, September). [Google Scholar]
  63. P.P. Maglio, C. Breidbach, A Service Science Perspective on the Role of ICT in Service Innovation Conference: European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) (2015) [Google Scholar]
  64. Gardner, G., Gardner, A., & O’Connell, J. (2014). Using the Donabedian framework to examine the quality and safety of nursing service innovation. Journal of clinical nursing, 23(1-2), 145-155. [Google Scholar]
  65. Spohrer J. Service innovation roadmaps and responsible entities learning. ITM Web of Conferences 38(4):01001 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  66. Leonard, M. Deagoicea, M, Responsible Service Logic, ITM Web Conf. 38 (2021) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.