Virtual assistants and personal assistants in homecare interactions: conversational user interfaces as assistive technologies


This paper explores how conversational user interfaces (CUIs) and virtual assistants such as the Amazon Echo’s Alexa are integrated into the daily routines of a ‘smart’ homecare setting. Specifically, we focus on how a disabled person and their personal assistant (PA) manage and distribute their work during homecare routine activities of daily living such as eating, getting out of bed, and getting dressed. We studied ~100 hours of video recorded by participants using a voice-controlled camera system to examine how they adapted their activities to accommodate the affordances and constraints of working with a CUI and a range of connected smart home devices. Our analyses focus on how participants encounter and resolve practical and interactional troubles that emerge when using the CUI as a functional component of the homecare environment. By examining these moments in detail, this paper invites designers, engineers, and researchers to adopt a more interactional model of disability, agency, and environment that can describe the interdependent relationships between human users, virtual agents, and the smart homecare setting.


Alač, M., Gluzman, Y., Aflatoun, T., Bari, A., Jing, B., & Mozqueda, G. (2020). How Everyday Interactions with Digital Voice Assistants Resist a Return to the Individual. Evental Aesthetics9(1), 51.

Amazon Echo. (2019). Amazon Alexa: Sharing is Caring.

Archibald, M. M., & Barnard, A. (2018). Futurism in nursing: Technology, robotics and the fundamentals of care. Journal of Clinical Nursing27(11–12), 2473–2480.

Bedaf, S., Gelderblom, G. J., de Witte, L., Syrdal, D., Lehmann, H., Amirabdollahian, F., Dautenhahn, K., & Hewson, D. (2013). Selecting services for a service robot: Evaluating the problematic activities threatening the independence of elderly persons. 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), 1–6.

Casey, D., Felzmann, H., Pegman, G., Kouroupetroglou, C., Murphy, K., Koumpis, A., & Whelan, S. (2016). What People with Dementia Want: Designing MARIO an Acceptable Robot Companion. In K. Miesenberger, C. Bühler, & P. Penaz (Eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 318–325). Springer International Publishing.

Chappell, N. L., Dlitt, B. H., Hollander, M. J., Miller, J. A., & McWilliam, C. (2004). Comparative Costs of Home Care and Residential Care. The Gerontologist44(3), 389–400.

Dowling, S., Williams, V., Webb, J., Gall, M., & Worrall, D. (2019). Managing relational autonomy in interactions: People with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities32(5), 1058–1066.

García-Soler, Á., Facal, D., Díaz-Orueta, U., Pigini, L., Blasi, L., & Qiu, R. (2018). Inclusion of service robots in the daily lives of frail older users: A step-by-step definition procedure on users’ requirements. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics74, 191–196.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32(10), 1489–1522.

Harmo, P., Taipalus, T., Knuuttila, J., Vallet, J., & Halme, A. (2005). Needs and solutions—Home automation and service robots for the elderly and disabled. 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 3201–3206.

House of Lords. (2021). Ageing: Science, Technology and Healthy Living (p. 132). House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee.

Kachouie, R., Sedighadeli, S., Khosla, R., & Chu, M.-T. (2014). Socially Assistive Robots in Elderly Care: A Mixed-Method Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction30(5), 369–393.

Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction49(1), 1–19.

Kingston, A., Comas-Herrera, A., & Jagger, C. (2018). Forecasting the care needs of the older population in England over the next 20 years: Estimates from the Population Ageing and Care Simulation (PACSim) modelling study. The Lancet Public Health3(9), e447–e455.

Krummheuer, A. L., Rehm, M., & Rodil, K. (2020). Triadic Human-Robot Interaction. Distributed Agency and Memory in Robot Assisted Interactions. Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 317–319.

Levine, D. M., Ouchi, K., Blanchfield, B., Diamond, K., Licurse, A., Pu, C. T., & Schnipper, J. L. (2018). Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine33(5), 729–736.

Maguire, D., Honeyman, M., Fenney, D., & Jabbal, J. (2021). Shaping the future of digital technology in health and social care. The King’s Fund.

Share, P., & Pender, J. (2018). Preparing for a Robot Future? Social Professions, Social Robotics and the Challenges Ahead. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies18(1).

Stokoe, E., Sikveland, R. O., Albert, S., Hamann, M., & Housley, W. (2020). Can humans simulate talking like other humans? Comparing simulated clients to real customers in service inquiries. Discourse Studies22(1), 87–109.

Topol, E. (2019). The Topol Review: Preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future (p. 103). Health Education England.

Tuisku, O., Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., & Melkas, H. (2018). “Robots do not replace a nurse with a beating heart”: The publicity around a robotic innovation in elderly care. Information Technology & People32(1), 47–67.

White, G. W., Lloyd Simpson, J., Gonda, C., Ravesloot, C., & Coble, Z. (2010). Moving from Independence to Interdependence: A Conceptual Model for Better Understanding Community Participation of Centers for Independent Living Consumers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies20(4), 233–240. navigation