3. Lee JH. Fourth industrial revolution and changes in elderly care. International Social Security Review. 2019; 2019(summer):141–146.
4. Sharkey A, Sharkey N. Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics and Information Technology. 2012; 14(1):27–40. DOI:
10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6.
Article
5. Robinson H, MacDonald B, Broadbent E. The role of healthcare robots for older people at home: a review. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2014; 6(4):575–591. DOI:
10.1007/s12369-014-0242-2.
Article
6. International Federation of Robotics (IFR). A positioning paper by the international federation of robotics [Internet]. Frankfurt: World Robotics Industrial Robots and Service Robots;2018. cited 2019 April 11. Available from:
https://ifr.org/worldrobotics.
8. Kim YK. The next big thing service robot trends and implications. ICT Spot Issue. Daejeon: Institute for Information and Communications Technology Promotion;2017. 06. p. 15–38. Report No.: S17-06.
9. Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B. Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2010; 2(4):361–375. DOI:
10.1007/s12369-010-0068-5.
10. Flandorfer P. Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: the importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. International Journal of Population Research. 2012; 2012:1–13. DOI:
10.1155/2012/829835.
Article
11. Ezer N, Fisk AD, Rogers WA. Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. Berlin: Springer;2009. p. 29–48. DOI:
10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_5.
12. Loffredo D, Tavakkoli A. What are european union public attitudes towards robots. Systemics Cybernetics and Informatics. 2016; 14(1):11–19.
13. Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, Adams AE, Charness N, Czaja SJ, et al. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010; 26(6):1710–1721. DOI:
10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020.
Article
14. Heerink M. Exploring the influence of age, gender, education and computer experience on robot acceptance by older adults. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 2011; 1:147–148.
Article
15. Lee C, Coughlin JF. Perspective: older adults' adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2015; 32(5):747–759. DOI:
10.1111/jpim.12176.
Article
16. Pino M, Boulay M, Jouen F, Rigaud AS. “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2015; 7:141. DOI:
10.3389/fnagi.2015.00141.
Article
17. Joranson N, Pedersen I, Rokstad AMM, Ihlebaek C. Effects on symptoms of agitation and depression in persons with dementia participating in robot-assisted activity: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2015; 16(10):867–873. DOI:
10.1016/j.jamda.2015.05.002.
Article
18. Broadbent E, Kuo IH, Lee YI, Rabindran J, Kerse N, Stafford R, et al. Attitudes and reactions to a healthcare robot. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2010; 16(5):608–613. DOI:
10.1089/tmj.2009.0171.
Article
19. Xu Q, Ng J, Tan O, Huang Z, Tay B, Park T. Methodological issues in scenario-based evaluation of human-robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2015; 7(2):279–291. DOI:
10.1007/s12369-014-0248-9.
Article
20. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (create). Psychology and Aging. 2006; 21(2):333–352. DOI:
10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333.
Article
21. Kim YK, Lee JS, Son SH, Cho SH, Park SA. A study on the change of dual support burden structure and countermeasures of middle-aged families. Research Report. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs;2018. 12. p. 124–128. Report No.: 2018-14.
23. Hancock PA, Billings DR, Schaefer KE, Chen JY, De Visser EJ, Parasuraman R. A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Human Factors. 2011; 53(5):517–527. DOI:
10.1177/0018720811417254.
Article
24. Han SW. Cognitive aging and acceptance of information and communication technology. Seoul National University Institute of Economics Research. 2017; 56(1):51–60.
25. Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B. The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents. 2008; 2(2):33–40.
Article
26. Cho OS, Kim JI, Kim YM. A study on sleep quality and geriatric depression in the elderly between hospital and senior welfare service center. Journal of the Korean Gerontological Society. 2013; 33(2):493–507.
27. Yoo HJ, Kim SY, Nam HW, No YK, Sin SH, Yoon JR, et al. Geriatrics medicine. 3rd ed. Seoul: The Korean Geriatrics Society;2015. p. 595–598.
28. Robinson H, MacDonald B, Kerse N, Broadbent E. The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2013; 14(9):661–667. DOI:
10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.007.
Article
29. Martinez-Martin E, Del-Pobil AP. Personal robot assistants for elderly care an overview. Personal Assistants Emerging Computational Technologies. Basel: Springer;2018. p. 77–91.
31. Park HJ, Jung BR, Kim OH, Kim YK, Ahn HJ, Lee YN, et al. Experience on emotional support of hospital nurses. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2008; 20(6):852–865.
32. Hong ST, Shin JC, Kang MS. A study on the factors affecting the acceptance intention of intelligent robot service for home use-application of technology acceptance model and innovation diffusion model. Korean Journal of Marketing. 2008; 9(4):271–303.
33. Choi MY, Kim SI. A study on the role of social robots in user experience. Journal of Digital Convergence. 2017; 15(2):295–300. DOI:
10.14400/JDC.2017.15.2.295.