Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 60 references

Smart medication systems gain more trust when automation leaves room for user correction rather than running fully automatically.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 08:58 UTC pith:UR3AJJ4A

load-bearing objection The study gives concrete evidence that partial automation beats full automation for trust and autonomy in medication support, with older adults showing varied preferences, but methods details are missing from the abstract. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.28777 v1 pith:UR3AJJ4A submitted 2026-06-27 cs.HC

Designing Automation Boundaries for Trustworthy Smart Medication Support

Liqian You , Jianlong Zhou This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords smart medication systemsautomation boundariesuser trustolder adultsuser controlmixed-methods studyhome health supportethical design
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests how automation levels in smart medication systems affect trust and acceptance. A mixed-methods study with 53 participants and interviews with 11 older adults compared three conditions and found that more automation does not always mean more trust. Users preferred options that eased routines but kept correction chances. Fully automatic support scored lower on autonomy, trust, transparency, dignity, and satisfaction. Results highlight the need to set automation boundaries based on task risk, user control, and ethical acceptability.

Core claim

In a mixed-methods study of a Smart Medication Support system, higher automation did not necessarily lead to higher trust or acceptance. Participants preferred automation that reduced routine effort while preserving opportunities for correction. Fully automatic support was less interruptive but rated lower in autonomy, trust, transparency, dignity, and satisfaction. Interviews also showed clear differences among older adults whose preferences were shaped by privacy concerns, digital confidence, perceived vulnerability, and caregiver involvement.

What carries the argument

Three automation conditions—confirmation required, automatic logging with undo, and fully automatic support—tested via mixed-methods study to measure effects on trust, acceptance, and related perceptions.

Load-bearing premise

The three automation conditions tested adequately capture meaningful real-world boundaries for medication support tasks, and the participant sample sufficiently represents diverse user capabilities and needs in home settings.

What would settle it

A larger follow-up study in real home environments where fully automatic support receives higher average trust and satisfaction ratings than the partial-automation conditions.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Automation boundaries should be calibrated according to task risk, user control needs, and ethical acceptability.
  • Systems should reduce routine effort without removing opportunities for user correction.
  • Design must account for differences among older adults in privacy concerns and digital confidence.
  • Fully automatic modes should be avoided in home medication routines to maintain user satisfaction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same calibration approach could apply to other home tasks such as appointment reminders or vital-sign logging.
  • Systems might let users toggle automation levels based on immediate context or past performance.
  • Longer-term field trials could reveal whether preferences shift after weeks of daily use.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods study with 53 participants (including interviews with 11 older adults) comparing three automation conditions in a Smart Medication Support system: confirmation required, automatic logging with undo, and fully automatic support. Key claims are that higher automation does not necessarily increase trust or acceptance; participants preferred partial automation reducing routine effort while preserving correction opportunities; fully automatic support was rated lower on autonomy, trust, transparency, dignity, and satisfaction despite being less interruptive; and older adults' preferences varied by privacy concerns, digital confidence, perceived vulnerability, and caregiver involvement. The work contributes empirical evidence and design implications for calibrating automation boundaries based on task risk, user control, and ethical acceptability.

Significance. If the results hold under rigorous methods, the work is significant for HCI and health technology design. It supplies empirical counter-evidence to the assumption that more automation always improves trust and acceptance in home medication routines, and it foregrounds ethical dimensions such as dignity and autonomy. The inclusion of older adults and mixed-methods design (quantitative ratings plus interviews) is a strength that can inform practical guidelines for trustworthy smart systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods: The abstract states the sample size and conditions but supplies no details on recruitment procedures, exact self-report measures or scales for trust/autonomy/etc., statistical tests used for condition comparisons, interview protocol, or thematic analysis approach. These elements are load-bearing for evaluating support for the directional findings and the claims about differences among older adults.
  2. [Results] Results: The claims that fully automatic support 'was rated lower' on multiple dimensions and that participants 'preferred' partial automation require reporting of the actual rating means, standard deviations, and any statistical significance or effect sizes from the within-subjects comparisons; without them the strength of evidence for the central preference claim cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Study Design] The three automation conditions are described at a high level; a table explicitly mapping each condition to the medication tasks (recognition, reminders, logging) would improve clarity and allow readers to judge ecological validity.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract could briefly note the study design (within-subjects) and any counterbalancing to help readers immediately understand the comparison structure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. The comments identify important areas where additional clarity will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that improve transparency without altering the core findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The abstract states the sample size and conditions but supplies no details on recruitment procedures, exact self-report measures or scales for trust/autonomy/etc., statistical tests used for condition comparisons, interview protocol, or thematic analysis approach. These elements are load-bearing for evaluating support for the directional findings and the claims about differences among older adults.

    Authors: We agree that these methodological details are essential. The submitted manuscript's Methods section is concise and does not fully elaborate recruitment procedures, the precise scales and items used for each construct, the exact statistical tests and corrections applied, the interview guide, or the thematic analysis process. In the revised version we will expand the Methods section to include: (1) recruitment channels and inclusion criteria, (2) the full list of self-report items and response scales, (3) the statistical approach (including within-subjects tests and any post-hoc procedures), (4) the semi-structured interview protocol, and (5) the thematic analysis steps and coding reliability checks. These additions will be placed in the main text or a supplementary appendix as appropriate. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: The claims that fully automatic support 'was rated lower' on multiple dimensions and that participants 'preferred' partial automation require reporting of the actual rating means, standard deviations, and any statistical significance or effect sizes from the within-subjects comparisons; without them the strength of evidence for the central preference claim cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We accept this point. The current Results section presents directional findings and qualitative themes but does not include the numerical means, standard deviations, significance values, or effect sizes for the within-subjects comparisons. In the revision we will add a table (or expanded text) reporting these statistics for autonomy, trust, transparency, dignity, satisfaction, and any other rated dimensions, together with the relevant test statistics and effect sizes. This will allow readers to evaluate the magnitude and reliability of the observed differences. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

This paper reports results from a mixed-methods empirical user study with 53 participants (including interviews with 11 older adults) comparing three explicitly defined automation conditions in a smart medication support system. The central findings on preferences for partial automation, lower ratings for fully automatic support on autonomy/trust/etc., and differences among older adults are derived directly from within-subjects comparisons, self-report measures, and thematic interview analysis. There are no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the claims to inputs by construction; the study design and data collection stand independently as standard HCI empirical work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard HCI assumptions about the validity of mixed-methods data and the representativeness of the tested conditions; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Self-reported ratings of trust, autonomy, transparency, dignity, and satisfaction accurately capture users' underlying preferences and experiences with automation.
    Invoked implicitly when interpreting questionnaire and interview data as evidence for design implications.
  • domain assumption The three automation conditions (confirmation required, automatic logging with undo, fully automatic) represent distinct and meaningful boundaries relevant to real home medication routines.
    Central to the experimental design and generalization of results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5685 in / 1388 out tokens · 29995 ms · 2026-06-30T08:58:12.133824+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Smart medication systems increasingly automate medication recognition, reminders, and logging. However, automation in home medication routines should be carefully bounded, as users may have different capabilities, privacy expectations, and needs for control over decisions. We present a mixed-methods study of a Smart Medication Support system comparing three automation conditions: confirmation required, automatic logging with undo, and fully automatic support. Across 53 participants and interviews with 11 older adults, we found that higher automation did not necessarily lead to higher trust or acceptance. Participants preferred automation that reduced routine effort while preserving opportunities for correction. Fully automatic support was less interruptive but was rated lower in autonomy, trust, transparency, dignity, and satisfaction. Interviews also showed clear differences among older adults. Their preferences were shaped by privacy concerns, digital confidence, perceived vulnerability, and caregiver involvement. We contribute empirical evidence and design implications for calibrating automation in smart medication systems according to task risk, user control, and ethical acceptability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28777 by Jianlong Zhou, Liqian You.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual design framework for examining automation boundaries in smart medication systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Functional architecture of the Smart Medication Support system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mean trust, autonomy, privacy, and satisfaction ratings across the three automation conditions. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hervé Abdi et al. 2007. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient.Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics2 (2007), 508–510

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Armghan Ahmad, Venus Chiu, and Mubashir Aslam Arain. 2020. Users’ perceptions of an in-home electronic medication dispensing system: a qualitative study.Medical devices: Evidence and research(2020), 31–39

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Hebah Alquran, Shadi Banitaan, Tasfia Bari, Yogesh Chavarkar, and Alphonso Bellamy. 2024. The impact of trust, comfortability, usability and technophobia factors on acceptance of health information technology.Telematics and Informatics Reports15 (2024), 100159

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Mubashir Aslam Arain, Armghan Ahmad, Venus Chiu, and Lorena Kembel. 2021. Medication adherence support of an in-home electronic medication dispensing system for individuals living with chronic conditions: a pilot randomized controlled trial.BMC geriatrics21, 1 (2021), 56

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Giles Birchley, Richard Huxtable, Madeleine Murtagh, Ruud Ter Meulen, Peter Flach, and Rachael Gooberman-Hill

    work page

  6. [6]

    Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers’ perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies.BMC medical ethics18, 1 (2017), 23

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale.Usability evaluation in industry189, 194 (1996), 4–7

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Marianella Chamorro-Koc, Jonathan Peake, Adam Meek, and Guljira Manimont. 2021. Self-efficacy and trust in consumers’ use of health-technologies devices for sports.Heliyon7, 8 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Devleena Das, Yasutaka Nishimura, Rajan P Vivek, Naoto Takeda, Sean T Fish, Thomas Ploetz, and Sonia Chernova

    work page

  10. [10]

    Explainable activity recognition for smart home systems.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems13, 2 (2023), 1–39

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Jovana Davidovic. 2023. On the purpose of meaningful human control of AI.Frontiers in big data5 (2023), 1017677. Designing Automation Boundaries for Trustworthy Smart Medication Support 111:17

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Fred D Davis, Richard P Bagozzi, and Paul R Warshaw. 1989. Technology acceptance model.J Manag Sci35, 8 (1989), 982–1003

    work page 1989

  13. [13]

    Fred D Davis, Richard P Bagozzi, and Paul R Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.Management science35, 8 (1989), 982–1003

    work page 1989

  14. [14]

    Prafulla N Dawadi, Diane J Cook, Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe, and Carolyn Parsey. 2013. Automated assessment of cognitive health using smart home technologies.Technology and health care21, 4 (2013), 323–343

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Ewart J De Visser, Marieke MM Peeters, Malte F Jung, Spencer Kohn, Tyler H Shaw, Richard Pak, and Mark A Neerincx

    work page

  16. [16]

    Towards a theory of longitudinal trust calibration in human–robot teams.International journal of social robotics 12, 2 (2020), 459–478

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Gordana Dermody, Roschelle Fritz, Courtney Glass, Melissa Dunham, and Lisa Whitehead. 2021. Factors influencing community-dwelling older adults’ readiness to adopt smart home technology: A qualitative exploratory study.Journal of Advanced Nursing77, 12 (2021), 4847–4861

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Sadaf Faisal, Jessica Ivo, Sarah Abu Fadaleh, and Tejal Patel. 2023. Exploring the value of real-time medication adherence monitoring: a qualitative study.Pharmacy11, 1 (2023), 18

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Sadaf Faisal, Devine Samoth, Yusra Aslam, Hawa Patel, SooMin Park, Bincy Baby, and Tejal Patel. 2023. Key features of smart medication adherence products: updated scoping review.JMIR aging6 (2023), e50990

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Nadine Andrea Felber, Yi Jiao Tian, Félix Pageau, Bernice Simone Elger, and Tenzin Wangmo. 2023. Mapping ethical issues in the use of smart home health technologies to care for older persons: a systematic review.BMC Medical Ethics 24, 1 (2023), 24

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Abir Ghorayeb, Rob Comber, and Rachael Gooberman-Hill. 2021. Older adults’ perspectives of smart home technology: Are we developing the technology that older people want?International journal of human-computer studies147 (2021), 102571

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Yuexing Hao. 2025. HUG Smart Sticker: Enhancing Personalized Intelligent Medication Management for Community- Dwelling Older Adults with an AIoT Intervention. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Christine Hine, Ramin Nilforooshan, and Payam Barnaghi. 2022. Ethical considerations in design and implementation of home-based smart care for dementia.Nursing ethics29, 4 (2022), 1035–1046

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Young-A Ji and Hun-Sung Kim. 2022. Scoping review of the literature on smart healthcare for older adults.Yonsei medical journal63, Suppl (2022), S14

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Jeena Joseph. 2025. Designing for dignity: ethics of AI surveillance in older adult care.Frontiers in Digital Health7 (2025), 1643238

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Smita Kapse, Ganesh Yenurkar, Vincent Nyangaresi, Gunjan Balpande, Shravani Kale, Manthan Jadhav, Sahil Lawankar, and Vikrant Jaunjale. 2025. MediServe: An IoT-enhanced deep learning framework for personalized medication management for elderly care.Computers, Materials, & Continua83, 1 (2025), 935

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Craig M Klugman, Laura B Dunn, Jack Schwartz, and I Glenn Cohen. 2018. The ethics of smart pills and self-acting devices: autonomy, truth-telling, and trust at the dawn of digital medicine.The American Journal of Bioethics18, 9 (2018), 38–47

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Ibrahim Kök, Feyza Yıldırım Okay, Özgecan Muyanlı, and Suat Özdemir. 2023. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai) for internet of things: a survey.IEEE Internet of Things Journal10, 16 (2023), 14764–14779

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Byounggwan Lee, Ohkyun Kwon, Inseong Lee, and Jinwoo Kim. 2017. Companionship with smart home devices: The impact of social connectedness and interaction types on perceived social support and companionship in smart homes. Computers in Human Behavior75 (2017), 922–934

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance.Human factors46, 1 (2004), 50–80

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    Lili Liu, Eleni Stroulia, Ioanis Nikolaidis, Antonio Miguel-Cruz, and Adriana Rios Rincon. 2016. Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review.International journal of medical informatics 91 (2016), 44–59

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Amama Mahmood, Shiye Cao, Maia Stiber, Victor Nikhil Antony, and Chien-Ming Huang. 2025. Voice assistants for health self-management: designing for and with older adults. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Sumit Majumder, Emad Aghayi, Moein Noferesti, Hamidreza Memarzadeh-Tehran, Tapas Mondal, Zhibo Pang, and M Jamal Deen. 2017. Smart homes for elderly healthcare—Recent advances and research challenges.Sensors17, 11 (2017), 2496

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Miquel Miró-Nicolau, Gabriel Moyà-Alcover, Antoni Jaume-i Capó, Manuel González-Hidalgo, Adel Ghazel, Maria Gemma Sempere Campello, and Juan Antonio Palmer Sancho. 2026. Toward a novel measure of user trust in XAI systems.Frontiers in Computer Science8 (2026), 1746591. 111:18

    work page 2026

  35. [35]

    Tejal Patel, Jessica Ivo, Sadaf Faisal, Aidan McDougall, Jillian Carducci, Sarah Pritchard, and Feng Chang. 2020. A prospective study of usability and workload of electronic medication adherence products by older adults, caregivers, and health care providers.Journal of medical Internet research22, 6 (2020), e18073

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Vinay Peddisetti, Pavan Kumar Kandregula, Joel Anil John, Suseela Poomdla, Kiran George, and Anand Panangadan

    work page

  37. [37]

    In2024 IEEE First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Medicine, Health and Care (AIMHC)

    Smart medication management: Enhancing medication adherence with an iot-based pill dispenser and smart cup. In2024 IEEE First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Medicine, Health and Care (AIMHC). IEEE, 137–144

    work page

  38. [38]

    Jessica Percy Campbell, Jacob Buchan, Charlene H Chu, Andria Bianchi, Jesse Hoey, and Shehroz S Khan. 2024. User perception of smart home surveillance among adults aged 50 years and older: Scoping review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth12 (2024), e48526

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Dulce G Pereira, Anabela Afonso, and Fátima Melo Medeiros. 2015. Overview of Friedman’s test and post-hoc analysis. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation44, 10 (2015), 2636–2653

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Pireh Pirzada, Adriana Wilde, Gayle Helane Doherty, and David Harris-Birtill. 2022. Ethics and acceptance of smart homes for older adults.Informatics for Health and Social Care47, 1 (2022), 10–37

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Vlad L Pop, Alex Shrewsbury, and Francis T Durso. 2015. Individual differences in the calibration of trust in automation. Human factors57, 4 (2015), 545–556

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Filippo Santoni de Sio and Jeroen Van den Hoven. 2018. Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: A philosophical account.Frontiers in Robotics and AI5 (2018), 323836

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Nadine B Sarter and David D Woods. 1997. Team play with a powerful and independent agent: Operational experiences and automation surprises on the Airbus A-320.Human factors39, 4 (1997), 553–569

    work page 1997

  44. [44]

    Ahmed Shuhaiber and Ibrahim Mashal. 2019. Understanding users’ acceptance of smart homes.Technology in society 58 (2019), 101110

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Yi Jiao Tian, Nadine Andrea Felber, Félix Pageau, Delphine Roulet Schwab, and Tenzin Wangmo. 2024. Benefits and barriers associated with the use of smart home health technologies in the care of older persons: a systematic review. BMC geriatrics24, 1 (2024), 152

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Clare L Tolley, Sarah P Slight, Andrew K Husband, Neil Watson, and David W Bates. 2018. Improving medication-related clinical decision support.The Bulletin of the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists75, 4 (2018), 239–246

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Cameron Tonkinwise. 2004. Ethics by design, or the ethos of things.Design philosophy papers2, 2 (2004), 129–144

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    Riitta Turjamaa, Sari Kapanen, and Mari Kangasniemi. 2020. How smart medication systems are used to support older people’s drug regimens: A systematic literature review.Geriatric Nursing41, 6 (2020), 677–684

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Upkar Varshney. 2013. Smart medication management system and multiple interventions for medication adherence. Decision Support Systems55, 2 (2013), 538–551

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2009. Ambient intelligence and persuasive technology: The blurring boundaries between human and technology.Nanoethics3, 3 (2009), 231–242

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    Isabel Seguí Verdú, Emma Sánchez Calatayud, Luís Taroncher Pellicer, and Larisa Dunai. 2025. Smart sensors in the design of a medication management system: Enhancing patient autonomy. In2025 International Aegean Conference on Electrical Machines and Power Electronics (ACEMP) & 2025 International Conference on Optimization of Electrical and Electronic Equi...

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    A Vrančić, H Zadravec, and T Orehovački. 2024. The role of smart homes in providing care for older adults: A systematic literature review from 2010 to 2023. Smart Cities, 7 (4), 1502-1550

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    David Wallace, Sourab Ganna, and Rajender R Aparasu. 2025. Validation of the Sensal Health MyAideTM Smart Dock Medication Adherence Device.Pharmacy13, 5 (2025), 123

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Rosalie H Wang, Thomas Tannou, Nathalie Bier, Mélanie Couture, and Régis Aubry. 2023. Proactive and ongoing analysis and management of ethical concerns in the development, evaluation, and implementation of smart homes for older adults with frailty.JMIR aging6, 1 (2023), e41322

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Magdalena Wischnewski, Nicole Krämer, and Emmanuel Müller. 2023. Measuring and understanding trust calibrations for automated systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and future directions. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Liqian You, Jianlong Zhou, and Fang Chen. 2025. Behavior Design for Building Trust on Smart Home-Based Food Intake Monitoring System for Older Adults. InIntelligent Systems Conference. Springer, 37–59

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Serena Zheng, Noah Apthorpe, Marshini Chetty, and Nick Feamster. 2018. User perceptions of smart home IoT privacy. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction2, CSCW (2018), 1–20

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    Junhong Zhu, Kaiyuan Shi, Chengyue Yang, Yanping Niu, Yingchun Zeng, Ning Zhang, Tao Liu, and Charlene H Chu

    work page

  59. [59]

    Ethical issues of smart home-based elderly care: A scoping review.Journal of nursing management30, 8 (2022), 3686–3699

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    I think this is the best one to use

    Donald W Zimmerman and Bruno D Zumbo. 1993. Relative power of the Wilcoxon test, the Friedman test, and repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks.The Journal of Experimental Education62, 1 (1993), 75–86. Designing Automation Boundaries for Trustworthy Smart Medication Support 111:19 A Research Methods A.1 Evaluation Protocol Summary This appendix provides a concis...

    work page 1993