Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0292558. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292558

Smart home adoption factors: A systematic literature review and research agenda

Alejandro Valencia-Arias 1,*, Sebastian Cardona-Acevedo 2, Sergio Gómez-Molina 3, Juan David Gonzalez-Ruiz 4, Jackeline Valencia 5
Editor: Mohammed A Al-Sharafi6
PMCID: PMC10588829  PMID: 37862296

Abstract

Smart homes represent the complement of various automation technologies that together make up a network of devices facilitating the daily tasks of residents. These technologies are being studied for their application from different sectors, including the projection of their use to improve energy consumption planning and health care management. However, technology adoption depends on social awareness within the scope of cognitive advantages and innovations compared to perceived risk because although there are multiple benefits, potential users express fears related to the loss of autonomy and security. This study carries out a systematic literature review based on PRISMA in order to analyze research trends and literary evolution in the technological adoption of smart homes, considering the main theories and variables applied by the community. In proposing a research agenda in accordance with the identified gaps and the growing and emerging themes of the object of study, it is worth highlighting the growing interest in the subject, both for the present and its development in the future. Until now, adoption factors have been attributed more to the technological acceptance model and the diffusion of innovation theory, adopting components of the Theory of Planned Behavior; therefore, in several cases, the attributes of different theories are merged to adapt to the needs of each researcher, promoting the creation of empirical and extended models.

Introduction

Due to the rapid development of technologies in the fourth industrial revolution, characterized by the convergence of digital, physical and biological technologies that are transforming the way we live and work, and their application in different sectors of the economy, the Internet of Things (IoT) has become an ally for the development of infrastructures worldwide. In this way, the construction sector has benefited, through the use of the IoT, from the creation of smart home environments [1].

From the offer of houses equipped with technologies designed to provide adequate services, smart homes seek to meet the needs of each inhabitant to improve their quality of life [2]. By making use of artificial intelligence, behavioral data can be used, and information on user preferences can be generated [3], enabling inhabitants to monitor and control a wide range of household appliances remotely and intelligently [4]. That is, smart homes represent a set of technologies that provide a human-centered network environment to connect hardware and applications in the home [5] that facilitate communication and collaboration between different devices by offering five main types of services: support, monitoring, provision of therapy, provision of comfort and counseling [3].

However, although the concept has gained popularity recently, it is not a new term because it has been discussed since the 1980s, evolving from traditional home automation to the present, where large global companies such as Google, Amazon, and Samsung Electronics are offering innovative products and services to take advantage of market growth [6]. In addition, it is estimated that cities will face an urban transformation in the coming years to manage their resources; therefore, the concept of smart cities involves various challenges related to sustainability, transport, the economy, governments, and lifestyles [7].

This industry is considered one of the most promising thanks to the rapid development of mobile network infrastructure [5]. In addition, smart homes are conceived as an option for energy management planning and health care management, and their technological adoption depends on the public’s perception of the benefits and perceived innovation [8]. This should be considered in conjunction with perceived risks because although there is a positive perception of smart home implementation, there is also a certain fear linked to the loss of autonomy and privacy at home [9,10], which limits perceived value and requires companies to work on the development of proposals related to safety [11].

According to the above, despite the potential of these systems to improve quality of life and experience, users’ acceptance of smart homes still does not meet expectations [4]. In the case of health care management, although its application reduces the cost of healthcare, smart technology has not spread because adoption is very low. In part, due to an inadequate understanding of the expectations, needs, and preferences of the users, and taking into account that the main audience is elderly individuals; this represents a significant challenge for successful implementation due to the conservative vision and technological concerns of this type of user [12,13]. Likewise, the popularity of smart homes is growing slower than expected and must be studied from the demand perspective [14].

Related studies show that expected performance, social impact, and cost are significant predictors of smart home adoption [15] and that perceived security risk affects the intent to use [16]. Therefore, companies dedicated to offering these services have the challenge of generating mechanisms that allow users to generate trust from controlling their domestic data, not only to overcome current restrictions but also to help people maintain a commitment to home life [17]. Considering that decision-making is not linear but unfolds through different stages, persuasion can begin as soon as consumers become accustomed to the technology, and knowledge can be developed after they have shown interest and decided to use it [18].

In accordance with the above, it is necessary to carry out a systematic review due to the growing interest in scientific production related to the subject, where various models have emerged to validate the level of technological adoption of smart technology homes [19]. Furthermore, considering the different perceived uses and the possible target audiences, there are also studies on programming optimization models to reduce the peak load and the cost of electricity [20], among other tools that seek to increase the use value of these technologies. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study in the current literature has provided an in-depth analysis of smart homes and services. To help bridge the identified knowledge gap, this study aims to conduct a systematic literature review in order to have a better understanding on this topic.

It allows to consider its relevance at present as well as the level of effect on society and its behavior [21] and seeking to identify the present context in which they operate, including the benefits and challenges generated from their technological adoption in the market, the perception of users and possible future scenarios. This systematic literature review focuses on the following research questions:

  • PI1: What are the leading research trends that address the adoption of smart homes?

  • PI2: What is the evolution of the main keywords in the knowledge body on smart home adoption?

  • PI3: What are the main theories used by researchers to determine the adoption of smart homes?

  • PI4: According to the knowledge body, what are the main variables used to understand the adoption of smart homes?

  • PI5: What research gaps are identified, and what further research questions can be formulated from these?

  • PI6: What elements should a research agenda have that integrate the identified gaps and the growing and emerging research themes on the adoption of smart homes?

Based on these research questions, the other sections of this study are composed as follows. First, the following section explains the materials and methods employed to answer the questions. Subsequently, using the studies identified to respond to the first four questions, the results section analyzes trends in bibliometric terms such as keywords, theories, and main variables in the adoption of smart homes. Then, the results are discussed, in which comparisons are made with other studies. Next, the main limitations and research gaps identified are detailed based on the previously described results to formulate a series of questions for further research as well as a research agenda, thus providing answers to questions five and six. Finally, after indicating the guidelines for further research, a discussion is presented with the achievements obtained about the proposed objective and the main conclusions of the systematic literature review on the adoption of smart homes.

Materials and methods

To meet the objective of this research and answer the questions posed in the introductory section, this systematic literature review is conducted using an exploratory and descriptive methodology through which it is possible to understand the state-of-the-art of field of research, through which it is possible to recognize, on the one hand, limitations in existing studies and, on the other hand, guidelines for further research [22,23].

For this systematic literature review, items described in the international PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), 2020 version, as seen in [24], and the methodological guidelines described in [25] were followed with regard to reporting the materials and methods, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, information sources, search strategies, data management, and flow chart designed by PRISMA to account for the entire methodological design.

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion or eligibility criteria refer to all the elements to be analyzed in the systematic review process, it is initially based on the strategic relationship of a series of keywords. Specifically, for this research on the adoption of smart homes, all the studies that, both in the titles and in the keywords, contain the concepts of Smart home, Smart house, Intelligent home, or Intelligent house or Home automation, validated by specialized engineering thesauri such as the IEEE, are included. Likewise, to fully address the object of study, these studies include the concepts of adoption or acceptance in the same metadata as title and keywords.

The inclusion criteria used in this systematic review are based on previous studies on smart home adoption, such as [26,27], which conducted systematic literature reviews on smart home adoption in different dimensions. Both studies used a set of keywords such as "smart home", "smart house", "smart home", "intelligent house", "home automation", and "adoption" in the titles and keywords, which were validated by specialized engineering references such as the IEEE.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria refer to the aspects that are considered to exclude studies during the systematic review process. According to the PRISMA 2020 statement, the exclusion criteria are applied in three consecutive exclusion phases. In the first phase, all studies that do not address the pre-defined research questions according to the title and abstract are excluded. In the second phase, all studies that do not provide access to the full text are excluded, making it impossible to analyze the models and drivers of smart home adoption in this case. These first two phases of exclusion were established from a previous bibliographic review, which found similarity of criteria in research such as that of [26,28].

Finally, once the resulting full texts have been analyzed, all scientific records that do not identify smart home adoption models, which is a fundamental purpose of the research, are excluded, leaving only scientific studies that provide answers to the questions raised in this study, deriving this exclusion criterion from the scientific literature, in articles such as those of [26,27].

Information sources

According to the PRISMA statement for literature reviews, once the inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined, it is necessary to specify the sources of information from which the inputs that will be subjected to detailed analysis will be extracted. In this sense, for this systematic literature review, Scopus and Web of Science are selected as sources of information because, as evidenced in [29], they are currently the two most important sources of bibliographic information in terms of supplying scientific metadata and carrying out bibliometric indicators that allow for a consistent evaluation of the scientific activity reflected in the literature.

Search strategy

After defining Scopus and Web of Science as the sources of information, it is essential to design a consistent search strategy that accounts for the previously detailed eligibility criteria so that the studies retrieved from both databases are directly related to the purpose of the research and for the characteristics of the search interface of each database. Therefore, the following specialized search equations were designed:

Scopus: TITLE (“smart house” OR “smart home” OR “intelligent home” OR “intelligent house” OR “home automation”) AND TITLE (adoption OR acceptance)) OR (KEY (“smart house” OR “smart home" OR "intelligent home" OR "intelligent house" OR "home automation") AND KEY (adoption OR acceptance)).

Web of Science: (TI = (“smart house" OR "smart home" OR "intelligent home" OR "intelligent house" OR "home automation”) AND TI = (adoption OR acceptance)) OR (AK = (“smart house" OR "smart home" OR "intelligent home" OR "intelligent house" OR "home automation”) AND AK = (adoption OR acceptance)).

These search equations were designed to identify studies related to the adoption and acceptance of technologies related to smart or automated homes. Both equations search for key terms related to smart homes, such as "smart house", "smart home", "intelligent home" and "home automation", and combine them with terms related to the adoption and acceptance of these technologies, such as "adoption" and "acceptance”. The goal is to retrieve research that examines factors that influence the adoption of smart home technologies, as well as users’ perceptions and attitudes toward these technologies.

Risk of bias assessment

The assessment of risk of bias in the studies included in this review followed a rigorous and consistent process. To ensure the quality and integrity of the results, all authors participated in the data collection and risk of bias assessment. An automated tool based on Microsoft Excel® was used to ensure an objective and standardized assessment. Each study was thoroughly reviewed by the authors independently, and any discrepancies or concerns were addressed collaboratively until consensus was reached. This risk of bias assessment methodology ensures the reliability of the results by applying consistent and transparent criteria throughout the scientific literature review process.

It is important to recognize that there is a bias in the sources of information used in this research, as they were limited to Scopus and Web of Science as databases to search for studies. This choice may have omitted relevant studies that may be available in other information sources or in more specialized databases related to smart homes. Despite this limitation, steps were taken to mitigate this bias by using the previously described inclusion and exclusion criteria and by conducting a comprehensive search within the databases selected from the search equation. However, it is important to note that there may still be relevant studies in other sources not included in this study, which could affect the breadth of the review and the generalizability of the results.

Data management

The application of the search strategies in each database allowed the initial retrieval of 239 scientific studies related to the adoption of smart homes, of which 189 were obtained from Scopus database and 50 were obtained from Web of Science database. These studies were exported to and stored in Microsoft Excel®, through which a data homogenization process was carried out to unify the format because of the typological differences in providing information from both databases. The same tool was used to apply the exclusion criteria and to conduct the data analysis to answer the posed research questions.

Study selection process

According to the PRISMA 2020 statement [24], it is necessary to define the process of selecting the studies for a systematic literature review. Each investigation author independently executed the search strategy and exclusion processes to reduce informational bias, using Microsoft Excel®. All the differences found were analyzed in strategic sections justified for each case until the information converged.

Effect measures

In the context of a systematic literature review on smart home adoption, emphasis is placed on specifying the effect measures used in the synthesis or presentation of results. Although these measures are more common in primary research, this study is based on secondary sources and focuses on the analysis of relevant geographic contexts, target populations, psychometric theories, and key explanatory factors or variables in these theories. This analysis is facilitated by the use of tools such as Microsoft Excel®, ChatGPT®, and Google Bard®, but it is emphasized that individual verification by the authors is essential to ensure the quality and accuracy of the data. This approach provides a comprehensive and contextualized view of smart home adoption from a perspective based on systematic literature review, although specific effect measures such as hazard ratios or mean differences are not used.

Synthesis methods

On the other hand, specific procedures were used to determine the eligibility of the studies included in the syntheses. For this purpose, three exclusion phases were carried out based on predefined criteria. Once these phases were completed, all the data collected were tabulated using the automated tool Microsoft Excel®. The data were obtained from the responses generated by the artificial intelligence tools ChatGPT® and Google Bard® and were subsequently subjected to manual validation by the authors to ensure accuracy and consistency in the preparation of the data for analysis. presentation or synthesis, and to contribute to the transparency and integrity of the systematic review process.

Certainty assessment

In addition, an individual certainty assessment method similar to that used for primary studies is applied. This involves a detailed, full-text examination of each article included in the systematic literature review. This process allows for the identification of the information under review. However, biases in the study are reported and limitations are discussed in the discussion section of the article. In this way, a comprehensive assessment of the reliability of the collected evidence is provided, contributing to a sound understanding of the findings and their implications in the context of smart home adoption.

Methodological design

In Fig 1, the flow chart recommended by the international PRISMA 2020 statement is presented to account for all the aspects related to the inclusion, exclusion, and definitive selection of studies to be analyzed in the present systematic literature review.

Fig 1. Flowchart for PRISMA systematic literature reviews.

Fig 1

In the initial search phase, a total of 239 relevant documents were retrieved. However, during the selection and review process, 43 duplicate documents were identified and eliminated, reducing the number to 196. Exclusion criteria were then applied to refine the selection. Of these, 16 documents were not related to the topic of smart home adoption according to the established criteria. In addition, 139 of the remaining documents were found to be inaccessible in full text. This lack of access may be due to several reasons, such as publisher access restrictions, institutional subscriptions required to access certain articles, or limited online availability of certain documents. Finally, after reviewing the remaining 41 full-text articles, 29 of them were excluded because they did not present theoretical models of smart home adoption, resulting in the final selection of the 12 studies included in the systematic review.

An overview of the 12 articles included in this review is presented in Table 1. This table provides basic information about each article, such as title, authors, year of publication, target population, country of study, and sample size. In addition, the theoretical model of smart home adoption used in each study is identified, which provides a useful reference for understanding the different perspectives addressed in the scientific literature on this topic.

Table 1. Summary of studies included in the review.

Article Authors Year Target population Country Sample size Theoretical model
1 Cognitive Dissonance in Technology Adoption: A Study of Smart Home Users [3] 2020 General users not specified 387 Own model
2 IoT Smart Home Adoption: The Importance of Proper Level Automation [6] 2018 General users South Korea 216 Own model
3 The influence of acceptance and adoption drivers on smart home usage [30] 2019 General users not specified 409 TAM; DOI
4 Senior citizens’ acceptance of connected health technologies in their homes [31] 2019 Elderly not specified 200 TAM
5 A comprehensive acceptance model for smart home services [32] 2021 General users Jordan 750 TAM; DOI; TPB
6 Analyzing the Elderly Users’ Adoption of Smart-Home Services [33] 2018 Elderly India; Thailand; Indonesia; Malaysia 239 Extended TAM
7 Factors Influencing Intention of Greek Consumers to Use Smart Home Technology [34] 2022 General users Greece 108 Extended TAM
8 The Investigation of Adoption of Voice-User Interface (VUI) in Smart Home Systems among Chinese Older Adults [35] 2022 Elderly China 420 Extended TAM
9 Privacy concerns in the smart home context [36] 2020 General users Germany 187 Extended TPB
10 What influences the perceived trust of a voice-enabled smart home system: An empirical study [37] 2021 General users China 475 Own model
11 Smart home adoption: The impact of user characteristics and differences in perception of benefits [38] 2021 Potential users South Korea 400 Own model
12 The heat is off! The role of technology attributes and individual attitudes in the diffusion of Smart thermostats–findings from a multi-country survey [39] 2021 General users France; Germany; Italy; Poland; Romania; Spain; Sweden; United Kingdom 5517 Own model

Results

This results section provides a comprehensive analysis of the findings from the systematic review of the 12 articles included in this study. Specifically, key aspects will be addressed, such as the target populations involved in the adoption of smart homes, the underlying theories that underpin this process, and the primary variables that influence this adoption. In addition, the research gaps identified in this analysis are identified and discussed in order to provide a comprehensive view of the topic and highlight areas of interest for future research.

Populations under study

As shown in Table 1, according to the sample of articles included in this systematic literature review, smart home adoption has only been validated in three types of populations: older adults, potential consumers, and general consumers, with the latter being the more common.

When it comes to the adoption of smart home technologies among general consumers, several studies have shed light on the determinants of their adoption intentions. Studies such as [34] in the Greek context have identified a number of key influences on this intention. [3] have explored cognitive dissonance in the adoption of these technologies, highlighting the critical importance of user perceptions in this process. Furthermore, research by [6] has emphasized the importance of an appropriate level of automation in smart home adoption, highlighting the need for the technology to be easily manageable by consumers.

On the other hand, studies such as [30] have made significant contributions to the field by exploring the acceptance and adoption drivers that influence smart home use. [32] have presented a comprehensive acceptance model for smart home services, providing a deeper understanding of the key determinants of adoption in this context.

Furthermore, [36] have addressed privacy concerns in the context of smart homes, a fundamental aspect in the adoption decision, while [37] have explored perceived trust in voice-enabled smart home systems, highlighting its influence on adoption. Finally, [39] have investigated the diffusion of smart thermostats, highlighting the importance of technological attributes and individual attitudes in adoption. Taken together, these studies have enriched our understanding of the adoption of smart home technologies among general consumers.

With regard to the older adult population, [31] conducted research on the adoption of connected health technologies in the homes of this demographic, highlighting the importance of adapting technological solutions to specific needs. [33] analyzed the adoption of smart services in elderly homes, highlighting the importance of usability and ease of use. In addition, [35] focused on the adoption of voice interfaces in smart home systems among Chinese elderly, providing valuable insights into the preferences of this demographic. As potential consumers, this demographic group shows noticeable differences from general consumers in terms of smart home adoption. [38] examined the impact of user characteristics and differences in perceived benefits on smart home adoption. This study highlighted the importance of understanding individual differences and benefit perceptions to develop effective marketing and promotion strategies.

Theory analysis

The selected theories allow understanding of the adoption of smart homes through various models, as seen in Table 2, where information is provided for publications between 2018 and 2022, in particular, the models used and the main territories where they were developed. The studies were conducted mainly in European and Asian countries, which, as previously expressed, are the countries that have generated the most publications on the subject.

Table 2. Theories of smart home adoption.

Theory Country Frequence Authors
TAM Germany; Jordan 3 [3032]
Extended TAM India; Thailand; Indonesia; Malaysia; Greece; China 3 [3335]
DOI Germany, Jordan 2 [30,32]
TPB Jordan 1 [32]
Extended TPB Germany, 1 [36]
Empirical models South Korea; United Kingdom; China; France; Germany; Italy; Poland; Romania; Spain; Sweden 5 [3,6,3739]

Six main theories are presented, for which the first is the technological acceptance model (TAM), which is addressed in [40], where they explain that the model arises as an adaptation of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to predict the interest of users to adopt a new technology, explaining that ease of use is reflected in perceived usefulness. In addition, the TAM allows the study of the impacts of external factors that interfere in the behaviors of users, adopting the concepts of perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), and attitudes toward the use of services (ATT), with the latter determined by the first two [31,32].

Additionally, studies were found in which the authors propose integral models of acceptance of technology as an extension of the traditional TAM, justifying that it is necessary to adapt the model based on the various particularities that consumers have for each technology [34]. A second theory is developed from these constructs, for which exogenous concepts supported by those already mentioned above are introduced. Variables related to the psychology, economic and hedonic value, usability, and security of smart homes are addressed, and hypotheses related to self-capacity, automation, universal connectivity, privacy, affordability, enjoyment, satisfaction, compatibility, and subjective norms are measured; the latter is related to the perception acquired by other people’s opinions [33]. Another study incorporates the trust variable, noting the uncertainty perceived by users in relation to the computing environment and emphasizing three main dimensions: competence, related to the capabilities of a system; benevolence, referring to the belief that power will be abused; and integrity, such as appropriateness of behavior [35].

However, TAMs analyze elements related to demographic and psychographic factors of users, while the diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory focuses on studying only those factors related to technology. Although these theories make significant contributions, they have recently begun to merge into more extensive models that contribute to the general understanding of adopting smart home technologies. In this way, DOI incorporates elements that are not typical of TAMs, such as experimentation with technology and the role of technology in users’ lives [30]. Addressing the process of innovation diffusion, from development to use, user behaviors, and user decisions, five relevant characteristics of potential users are noted: relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, possibility of proof, and observability of the innovation [32].

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) proposes that behaviors are influenced by three main beliefs: attitude, subjective norms, and behavioral control. In this sense, it takes into account scenarios where it is not possible to have general user vigilance. Therefore, the element of perceived behavioral control (PBC) is incorporated through the perspective of particular capacities based on previous practices and perceived complexity based on internal and external limitations; attitudes, on the other hand, reflect whether self-examination is conducive or not conducive to the effects of behavior; and finally, subjective norms represent the social influence on an individual [32,36].

Studies were found in which the TPB is applied in extended versions, combining its attributes with those of the TAM to evaluate danger and the intention of using smart home devices. It is relevant for companies to understand those elements that individuals consider before using their services; therefore, the TPB is used to obtain a broader representation of technological acceptance, considering PBC as the most influential variable in behavior and concluding, in turn, that behavioral control has a positive impact on intent to use [36].

Finally, there are models proposed empirically by the authors; these models provide a different perspective on adopting smart home technology based on new variables that previous theories have not addressed. For example, [38] propose within their hypothesis concepts regarding the preference for energy and health services and their possible impact on intent to use. Additionally, [6] propose that perceived controllability and interconnection are elements that should be considered to carry out measurements.

Analysis of the main variables

The most relevant variables were identified and are detailed in Table 3, which includes recent studies from 2018 to 2022, the included variables, and the authors who have addressed those variables.

Table 3. Main variables for the adoption of smart homes.

Variable Authors
Perceived Reliability [6,3637,39]
Perceived Usefulness [3036]
Behavioral Intent [30,3235,38,39]
Perceived Ease of Use [3035]
Control of Perceived Behavior [6,30,32,36]
Perceived Enjoyment [3,33,34,37]
Perceived Interconnection [6,32,33]
Subjective Norm [33,36,37]
Perceived Cost [32,34,39]
Perceived Automation [6,33]
Attitude Toward Use [32,33]
Perceived Compatibility [32,34]

The results yielded 12 key concepts, which, in turn, are fully addressed within the theories previously analyzed, giving coherence to the present study. These variables are defined below based on the definitions established by the authors for implementation within each one of the models.

For "perceived reliability" [37], state that the good quality of a system conveys a feeling of trust perceived by users and that the smart home industry is still in the early stages of development; therefore, perceived reliability is a key element to reducing uncertainty and includes elements such as trustworthiness, reliability, controllability, and competence.

Studies that employ TAMs include “perceived usefulness” (PU) as a determining factor for technological acceptance, i.e., the perceived value that a technology can enhance work performance. "Perceived ease of use" (PEOU) is related to the perception of effort associated with the complexity of learning and usability [30]. Likewise, concepts of the TPB are employed, for example, “control of perceived behavior”, which is defined by Ajzen [41] and referenced in the work of [32] as "the perceived ease or difficulty in performing a behavior and its ability to reflect the experience as well as the expected impediments and obstacles”.

The study “Analyzing the Elderly Users’ Adoption of Smart-Home Services” by [33] is one of the most theoretically enriched investigations because several key concepts are defined in their work. For example, "perceived enjoyment" is the satisfaction related to the intention of using any product or service, and “subjective norm” corresponds to the opinions instilled in an individual by the environment due to a lack of knowledge about usability when a product is novel. Another concept, "automation", is one of the main elements in the technology applied to smart homes, and its adaptation to the domestic components of homes increases users’ comfort.

Another key component is "perceived interconnection", defined as "the ability to work together reliably because there is a discrete manufacturer" [6], which, in addition, is related to "perceived compatibility", which serves as a hypothesis of the work in [34] and includes variables associated with human psychology, such as confidence and perceived enjoyment.

Finally, [32] reference Tornatzky and Klein [42] and refer to “perceived cost” as “the cost of a system, whether expensive or not, based on the financial resources of the user”. Moreover, several studies contain it in the framework of technological adoption as a determinant of “behavioral intention.” The latter is determined by attitude and perceived usefulness, and [30,33] reference Venkatesh [43] and define it as ‴the degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to carry out or not a certain future behavior".

Research gaps

This study has identified the main research gaps in the available scientific literature (Table 4), proposing research questions so that future authors can carry out new studies that fill these identified theoretical and conceptual gaps. Such further studies will contribute to a more robust understanding of the factors that determine the adoption of smart homes from different social, cultural, economic, demographic, and geographical contexts.

Table 4. Gaps and questions for future research.

Topic Identified gap Questions for further research
Theories of adoption and use of technology 1. The existing research has focused predominantly on the main models of adoption, such as the TAM, DOI, and TPB, with limited attention given to one of the leading models of adoption and use of technology, i.e., the UTAUT. QFR1. What is the role of the main factors of the UTAUT model in the adoption of smart homes?
QFR2. What are the main moderating variables of the UTAUT model in the adoption of smart homes?
Smart home adoption variables addressed 1. Although perceived reliability is currently positioned as the most important variable of the adoption of smart homes, the main theories that allow understanding the variables that determine perceived reliability in the adoption of smart homes are unknown. QFR1. What theories allow a better approach toward understanding the variables that determine perceived reliability in adopting smart homes?
2. The most frequent variable in the adoption of smart homes is perceived reliability; however, the main variables that determine perceived reliability in the adoption of smart homes in the context of emerging economies are still developing. QFR2. What are the main variables that determine perceived reliability in adopting smart homes in contexts of emerging countries?
3. Among the variables identified in the scientific literature, attitude toward use has received little attention from researchers. QFR3. What is the role of perceived reliability in attitude toward use by users for the adoption of smart homes?
Context of smart home adoption 1. Studies on the adoption of smart homes address the context of more developed countries, omitting the variables that affect the adoption of this technology in homes in emerging countries. QFR1. What is the difference between the main adoption variables between developed and emerging countries?
QFR2. What is the role of variables such as perceived cost and other economic and fial needs in emerging economies?
Other populations 1. There is a lack of research on the adoption of smart home technologies by people with disabilities, despite the potential impact on their quality of life. QFR1. How can smart home technologies be designed and adapted to meet the needs of people with disabilities?
2. Research tends to focus on urban environments, leaving a gap in understanding smart home adoption in rural communities where needs and challenges may be different. QFR2. How can smart home technologies address the unique needs of rural communities and overcome infrastructure limitations?
3. Most studies have examined smart home adoption among middle- and high-income groups, leaving a gap in understanding how low-income people perceive and use these technologies. QFR3. What are the economic and accessibility barriers to smart home adoption faced by low-income consumers, and how can they be overcome?

Discussion

In order to discuss the results obtained in this systematic literature review, the practical implications of both the bibliometric phase and the identification of research trends are addressed, as are the implications of the detailed analysis of theories and variables associated with the adoption of smart homes. Furthermore, the main limitations of the research, a comparison is made between the results obtained and the results reported by other similar studies, and finally, a research agenda is proposed that considers the research trends, the main theories and variables and, the identified gaps in the results section.

Practical implications

The 12 studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed, allowing the establishment of a perspective of the current environment in which the issue of the adoption of smart home technology is developed, further revealing the main theories and variables related to the object of study. As a result, it was possible to identify six theories and 12 main variables covered throughout the studies analyzed.

In relation to the theories analyzed, several studies used models in combination; that is, the models were applied together to take advantage of the attributes each author considered relevant to their work. For example, although the TAM is the most used, in most cases, the authors merged the model with elements of other theories, such as the innovation diffusion theory and the theory of planned behavior. This is reflected in the fact that some studies include extended models, as mentioned by [34]. Furthermore, each technology has its own characteristics. Therefore, it is necessary to adapt models based on the needs of each application, taking into account the implications that may have on the user profile of each industry. In this way, smart homes to health sector are constructed using smart technology in order to monitor patients, especially older people, in their homes.This explains the interest in generating empirical models that fit these requirements and identifying which variables have not been considered within the traditional models to obtain a general perception of technological acceptance, considering variables such as health, which is perceived as a benefit.

Regarding variables, the most relevant based on the results obtained is perceived reliability. There has been a low response to adopting smart home technology compared to what was expected; although several benefits are attributed to implementing such technology, users perceive insecurity. As explained by [33], individuals do not want to place their trust in companies and give them access to their personal data. In fact, they explain that perceived security is even lower in older people who fear the adoption of new technologies, a population of potential users due to their health monitoring needs.

Therefore, the present research can help companies in this sector adopt measures based on the risks observed by individuals, aiming to improve the perception of potential users and their opinions about privacy and security factors surrounding applying this type of technology in homes.

On the other hand, the systematic review conducted provides valuable lessons for those responsible for creating policies and regulations in the area of smart home adoption. First, it highlights the need for updated regulation that addresses user privacy and security concerns. Consumer trust is fundamental to the success of this technology, so policies must ensure the protection of personal data and promote safety in the use of smart devices in the home. Policymakers should be aware of the perceived uncertainty surrounding the adoption of this technology and work on policies that address these concerns.

Professionals involved in the implementation of smart home technology must recognize the importance of tailoring models and approaches to the specific needs of each application. This review highlights that a combination of theories and models can be effective in understanding technology acceptance in this diverse context. It also highlights the importance of the variable "perception of trustworthiness". Professionals need to actively address this user concern and design solutions that build trust and minimize perceived risk, especially in the older adult population, which is an important user group in the health care field.

Education professionals have a critical role to play in the effective implementation of smart home technology in distance and home-based learning. This report highlights the importance of addressing the privacy and security concerns of students and their families when using smart devices and systems in education. Educators should work closely with parents and caregivers to ensure that they are comfortable with the technology being used and understand how student data will be collected and protected.

This systematic review has important implications for developers of smart home technologies. First, it highlights the need to prioritize security and privacy in the design and development of these systems. The results show that the perception of trustworthiness is a critical factor for users, so developers must implement strong data security measures and provide transparency in the management of personal information.

In addition, this research highlights the importance of flexibility in system design. Since each smart home technology application may have specific needs and characteristics, developers must be willing to adapt their models and solutions to the needs of each market. Interdisciplinary collaboration, including the involvement of security and ethics experts, is essential to effectively address user concerns and develop solutions that inspire trust.

In terms of populations, the lack of research focused on specific populations, such as people with disabilities or rural communities, highlights the need to design inclusive and accessible technology solutions. Technology companies and product designers must carefully consider the diverse needs and limitations of these populations when developing smart home devices and systems. This includes not only adapting the user interface and functionality, but also ensuring that the solutions are affordable and easily accessible to everyone.

In addition, research gaps in low-income and minority communities pose significant challenges to technology equity. To address these gaps, it is essential that technology companies work with local organizations and communities to understand specific needs and overcome economic and cultural barriers. Not only can this lead to a larger and more diverse market, but it can also help improve the quality of life for these communities by providing access to technologies that can increase energy efficiency, safety, and comfort in the home.

Theoretical contributions

The theoretical contributions derived from this systematic review are significant and shed light on several aspects related to technology adoption in smart homes. First, a variety of theories and models have been identified that have been applied to understand this phenomenon in different contexts and territories. In addition to traditional models such as TAM and DOI, extended and enriched models have been proposed that incorporate additional elements to address the complexity of smart home adoption.

Adapting models to the specific needs of each application is an important contribution. This review notes that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, as smart home technologies vary in their characteristics and requirements. Researchers and practitioners now have the basis to adapt theoretical models to the specifics of each industry, resulting in a more accurate and effective approach to assessing technology acceptance.

Furthermore, the importance of the variable "perception of reliability" in the adoption of smart home technology has been highlighted. This variable, which addresses the user’s perception of security and reliability, was highlighted as critical in a context where the security of personal data is a primary concern. This theoretical contribution highlights the need for developers and companies in this sector to prioritize security and reliability in system design and implementation.

Another important theoretical aspect is the fusion of theories and models, which allows for a more holistic understanding of technology adoption in smart homes. Combining elements from different theories, such as integrating TAM with the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations or the Theory of Planned Behavior, provides a more complete view of the factors that influence technology adoption. This theoretical contribution promotes an interdisciplinary approach to address the complexities of technology adoption in the home.

In this sense, in terms of combining theories, Fig 2 is proposed, which presents an innovative and comprehensive theoretical model. This model combines the main theories identified in this systematic review, integrating elements of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI), and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). It also incorporates key latent variables from the scientific literature. This multidimensional approach provides a solid foundation for analyzing and understanding technology adoption in the smart home from a comprehensive perspective, taking into account the complex interaction of factors that influence user decisions.

Fig 2. Proposal for a theoretical model of smart home adoption.

Fig 2

The findings of this study add valuable nuances to existing technology adoption theories and propose a new theoretical framework that reflects the complexity of technology adoption in smart homes. The proposed model, the Technology Adoption Model for Smart Homes (TAMSH), adds new nuances to traditional theories by integrating key variables specific to technology adoption in this particular context. Rather than considering only individual perceptions and attitudes toward technology, the TAMSH incorporates a broader range of influences, such as relative benefits, observability, social norms, and perceived costs. This enriches existing theories by recognizing the importance of social and contextual factors in the adoption of smart home technologies. In addition, the TAMSH highlights the importance of the variables of perceived enjoyment and perceived connectedness, which are critical to home technology adoption but often overlooked in conventional theories.

Limitations

The studies analyzed have applied their adoption models locally; therefore, the variables associated with the findings result from the peculiarities and elements of each territory. For this reason, new empirical and extended models have been developed, which suggest that these theories should be applied based on the characteristics of each sector and not in a general way, even more so taking into account the lack of studies in emerging economies because it is unknown if these same variables are applicable in that context.

It is necessary to consider that one of the main limitations of the research is incomplete retrieval, taking into account that for the study carried out, it was impossible to obtain detailed information from all the texts retrieved from the databases, and not all documents were complete or had open access to the public. Therefore, several studies were considered for the bibliometric analysis but discarded for the systematic literature review and the analysis of thematic components related to the variables and theories.

It is important to note that this systematic review has inherent limitations that must be considered when interpreting the results. One of the main limitations is the relatively small number of articles included in the final sample, which consists of 12 studies. This means that the results obtained, although significant within the selected sample, are not absolutely conclusive in terms of representing all the information available in the scientific literature on the adoption of smart homes. Future studies in this area could overcome this limitation by accessing a larger number of articles and expanding the scope of the review to provide a more complete and detailed view of the factors that influence the adoption of technologies in smart homes.

Related work

Other studies have addressed the perception of users about the implementation of smart homes through a systematic literature review, for example, “A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective”, in which the authors conduct a review on the topicality of the subject from the user perspective, presenting an overview of the characteristics of smart homes, examining the impact of behavioral beliefs on user behavior and satisfaction, taking into account the perceived risks and benefits, and therefore contributing to the literature on the acceptance of technologies in private settings [44].

The approach taken in [28] involves the development of a holistic framework of smart homes from a bibliometric perspective, focusing on their intellectual structure and research trends through the application of analysis and visualization tools such as CiteSpace and VOSviewer, identifying hot spots, current affairs and further directions of research in this field.

Additionally, [45] carried out a bibliometric and scientometric study from the perspective of users among the elderly population, analyzing research trends and identifying the need to exert greater effort to diversify funding sources and priorities. In [46], the factors that hinder and promote the adoption of smart home technologies are examined from the business point of view. Based on an analysis of previous literature and thematic map, where constructs are evaluated as drivers and obstacles to adoption, variables such as innovation, high cost, lack of compatibility, lack of ability to test it, inability to observe it, lack of a trustworthy brand, lack of favorable conditions, support services, complexity, and technological anxiety were identified.

Research agenda

Finally, in a complementary way, in this systematic review, a research agenda is proposed so that, in addition to the identified gaps, other researchers can guide further scientific studies based on topics considered emerging and cutting-edge, as observed in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Research agenda.

Fig 3

The research agenda is proposed from the 30 main concepts that, secondarily, have been provided by all the authors who have researched factors for smart home adoption. The agenda displays the window of time in which the concepts have been addressed and the most relevant year, identifying the specific moment in which a concept was prominent in the scientific literature, prioritizing those concepts studied in the last year, with the most important occurring in the year closest to the present.

In this sense, it is evident that the concept of telehealth has been addressed in a greater window of time, appearing in the scientific literature approximately in 2004 and being studied to date. Therefore, although the most relevant year for this concept is approximately 2017, it is among one of the most relevant keywords, in terms of benefits, for the adoption of smart homes.

Another concept that has been transversally important for the development of the scientific body is assistive technology, which, like telehealth, is positioned among one of the most relevant subtopics in regard to understanding factors for the adoption of smart homes because it offers a greater range of possibilities for the medical care of patients. Therefore, further studies should expand on the importance of this factor, inquiring about the importance of assistive technology on perceived usefulness, which is positioned as the second most important factor in understanding the adoption of smart homes.

For understanding the factors that influence, in different populations, the adoption of smart homes, the scientific literature has made use of technological acceptance and technological adoption models in general. These two concepts are currently widely addressed. Further research can add to the understanding of the field using other models validated in the scientific literature, such as the UTAUT, as well as its multiple extensions, which, as previously identified, has been rarely addressed by different researchers, thus offering a wide margin of growth and prominence for the near further for the topic of the adoption of smart homes.

However, the UTAUT model, as well as its extensions, is not the only model that can be employed soon to understand better the factors for adopting smart homes. The model of technological acceptance (MTA) is well-positioned as the most important model to understand the factors that affect the acceptance or adoption of smart homes in different populations that, until now, have not been studied in the scientific literature.

From another perspective, the adoption of smart homes involves not only perceived usefulness, which has been addressed in telemedicine and technologies for medical care of different types of patients but also the individual innovation of users at the forefront of technology. This is currently one of the most studied concepts and further research should build on its inherent relationship with important variables such as perceived compatibility, perceived automation, and perceived interconnection, among others, to expand the knowledge of the main factors of adoption of smart homes by this type of consumer.

One of the main concepts that has emerged in the research field in the previous decade and constitutes one of the main factors today is privacy, associated with aspects of safety and reliability by consumers. Therefore, as identified among the main gaps, further research should expand the concrete understanding of the main factors that explain perceived reliability and develop solutions that allow this technological innovation to be adopted by more people to enjoy its different benefits and facilities.

Finally, from the most important technical aspect, further research should provide new perspectives for the understanding, acceptance, and use of the IoT and home automation, with the former being fundamental for the interconnection of different elements and the latter being the automation of different patterns so that different types of populations can exploit smart home technology.

Conclusions

Based on the research findings, the adoption of smart homes is positioned as a growing theme in the scientific literature, whose bibliometric research trends show the importance of scientific and technological development in the present and the near future. Studies are growing at an exponential rate, primarily in the context of developed countries such as the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and South Korea, which have expanded the scientific literature thanks to both their scientific and research as technological and innovation capacity.

The thematic evolution analysis revealed that the adoption of smart homes not only relates to factors associated with health and telemedicine but also currently accounts for aspects of innovation based on consolidated technologies such as the IoT, and other emerging concepts, such as home automation, which involves aspects associated with interconnection and automation.

In addition, currently, the adoption of smart homes is more associated with technological acceptance factors than behavioral factors, with the main models being the TAM, as well as its different extensions, and the DOI, even more so than the TPB, which focuses on more psycho-behavioral aspects than on technology adoption.

It is evident that, with the TAM as the most used theory to understand the factors for the adoption of smart homes, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are positioned among the variables that most explain this technological adoption. However, perceived reliability is the most important variable at present and the most important shortly because security and privacy directly affect how users perceive the reliability of this cutting-edge technology, in addition to other factors such as perceived enjoyment and perceived cost.

Understanding that the main theories used to investigate the adoption of smart homes involve technological acceptance issues rather than behavioral issues, further research should add new analysis elements through one of today’s leading theories, i.e., the UTAUT, as identified as a main gap in existing research.

Finally, this systematic literature review allowed for establishing the orientation for further research based on a research agenda that includes cutting-edge and emerging concepts within the research field and the main research gaps identified to expand the understanding of the factors for the adoption of smart homes from the scientific perspective and develop new technical and innovative solutions from the technological perspective.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

The data availability statement for this study has been duly recorded and archived in the Zenodo open data repository, a repository recognized for its commitment to the accessibility and preservation of scientific data. The data and materials supported by this study are publicly available and can be accessed at the following DOI link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8381268. This repository ensures the availability of and access to the underlying data used in research, promoting transparency and reproducibility of results, thereby enhancing the reliability and utility of scientific research.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Park E, Cho Y, Han J, Kwon SJ. Comprehensive approaches to user acceptance of internet of things in a smart home environment. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017;4: 2342–2350. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Marikyan D, Papagiannidis S, Alamanos E. Smart home technology acceptance: an empirical investigation. In: Pappas IO, Mikalef P, Dwivedi YK, Jaccheri L, Krogstie J, Mäntymäki M, editors. Digital transformation for a sustainable society in the 21st century. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 305–315. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marikyan D, Papagiannidis S, Alamanos E. Cognitive dissonance in technology adoption: a study of smart home users. Inf Syst Front. 2020: 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10796-020-10042-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shuhaiber A, Mashal I. Understanding users’ acceptance of smart homes. Technol Soc. 2019;58: 101110. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Park E, Kim S, Kim Y, Kwon SJ. Smart home services as the next mainstream of the ICT industry: determinants of the adoption of smart home services. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2018;17: 175–190. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yang H, Lee W, Lee H. IoT smart home adoption: the importance of proper level automation. J Sens. 2018;2018: 6464036. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Baudier P, Ammi C, Deboeuf-Rouchon M. Smart home: highly-educated students’ acceptance. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2020;153: 119355. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nikou S. Factors driving the adoption of smart home technology: an empirical assessment. Telemat Inform. 2019;45: 101283. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Li W, Yigitcanlar T, Erol I, Liu A. Motivations, barriers and risks of smart home adoption: from systematic literature review to conceptual framework. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2021;80: 102211. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wilson C, Hargreaves T, Hauxwell-Baldwin R. Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Energy Policy. 2017;103: 72–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kim Y, Park Y, Choi J. A study on the adoption of IoT smart home service: using Value-based adoption model. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 2017;28: 1149–1165. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pal D, Funilkul S, Charoenkitkarn N, Kanthamanon P. Internet-of-things and smart homes for elderly healthcare: an end user perspective. IEEE Access. 2018;6: 10483–10496. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alaiad A, Zhou L. Patients’ adoption of WSN-based smart home healthcare systems: an integrated model of facilitators and barriers. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2017;60: 4–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shin J, Park Y, Lee D. Who will be smart home users? An analysis of adoption and diffusion of smart homes. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2018;134: 246–253. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Aldossari MQ, Sidorova A. Consumer acceptance of internet of things (IoT): smart home context. J Comput Inf Syst. 2020;60: 507–517. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Klobas JE, McGill T, Wang X. How perceived security risk affects intention to use smart home devices: a reasoned action explanation. Comput Secur. 2019;87: 101571. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Arthanat S, Wilcox J, Macuch M. Profiles and predictors of smart home technology adoption by older adults. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2019;39: 247–256. doi: 10.1177/1539449218813906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sanguinetti A, Karlin B, Ford R. Understanding the path to smart home adoption: segmenting and describing consumers across the innovation-decision process. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2018;46: 274–283. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shlega M, Maqsood S, Chiasson S. Users, smart homes, and digital assistants: impact of technology experience and adoption. In: Moallem A, editor. HCI for cybersecurity, privacy and trust. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. pp. 422–443. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lu Q, Guo Q, Zeng W. Optimization scheduling of home appliances in smart home: a model based on a niche technology with sharing mechanism. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst. 2022;141: 108126. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Manterola C, Astudillo P, Arias E, Claros N. Revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura. Qué se debe saber acerca de ellas. Cir Esp. 2013;91: 149–155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10: 89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Vera C, Rodríguez Y, Hernández H. Medición del desempeño del sistema de gestión de seguridad y salud en el trabajo: revisión sistemática de literatura. Rev CEA. 2022;8: e2052. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2021;74: 790–799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhao Y, Llorente AMP, Gómez MCS. Digital competence in higher education research: a systematic literature review. Comput Educ. 2021;168: 104212. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104212 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Li W, Yigitcanlar T, Erol I, Liu A. Motivations, barriers and risks of smart home adoption: From systematic literature review to conceptual framework. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021;80: 102211. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102211 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Buil-Gil D, Kemp S, Kuenzel S, Coventry L, Zakhary S, Tilley D, et al. The digital harms of smart home devices: A systematic literature review. Comput. Human Behav. 2023: 107770. doi: 10.3390/joitmc8010045 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ohlan R, Ohlan A. A comprehensive bibliometric analysis and visualization of smart home research. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2022;184: 121975. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pranckutė R. Web of science (WoS) and scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications. 2021;9: 12. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hubert M, Blut M, Brock C, Zhang RW, Koch V, Riedl R. The influence of acceptance and adoption drivers on smart home usage. Eur J Mark. 2019;53: 1073–1098. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Etemad-Sajadi R, Santos GGD. Senior citizens’ acceptance of connected health technologies in their homes. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2019;32: 1162–1174. doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2018-0240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Al-Husamiyah A, Al-Bashayreh M. A comprehensive acceptance model for smart home services. Int J Data Netw Sci. 2022;6: 45–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pal D, Funilkul S, Vanijja V, Papasratorn B. Analyzing the elderly users’ adoption of smart-home services. IEEE Access. 2018;6: 51238–51252. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pliatsikas P, Economides AA. Factors influencing intention of greek consumers to use smart home technology. Appl Syst Innov. 2022;5: 26. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Song Y, Yang Y, Cheng P. The investigation of adoption of voice-user interface (VUI) in smart home systems among chinese older adults. Sensors (Basel). 2022;22: 1614. doi: 10.3390/s22041614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Guhr N, Werth O, Blacha P, Breitner M. Privacy concerns in the smart home context. SN Appl Sci. 2020;2: 247. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Liu Y, Gan Y, Song Y, Liu J. What influences the perceived trust of a voice-enabled smart home system: an empirical study. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21: 2037. doi: 10.3390/s21062037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chang S, Nam K. Smart home adoption: the impact of user characteristics and differences in perception of benefits. Buildings. 2021;11: 393. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tu G, Faure C, Schleich J, Guetlein MC. The heat is off! The role of technology attributes and individual attitudes in the diffusion of Smart thermostats–findings from a multi-country survey. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021;163: 120508. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13: 319–340. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50: 179–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tornatzky L, Klein K. Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementatio: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 1982;29: 28–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly. 2003: 425–478. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Papagiannidis S, Alamanos E. A systematic review of the smart home literature: a user perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2018;138: 139–154. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hong YK, Wang ZY, Cho JY. Global research trends on smart homes for older adults: bibliometric and scientometric analyses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19: 14821. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192214821 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Basarir-Ozel B, Turker H, Nasir VA. Identifying the key drivers and barriers of smart home adoption: a thematic analysis from the business perspective. Sustainability. 2022;14: 9053. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohammed A Al-Sharafi

31 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-13511Smart home adoption factors: A systematic literature review and research agendaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Valencia-Arias,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 14 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammed A. Al-Sharafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript, as have our three expert reviewers. Based on the reviewers' comments and my own evaluation, your paper provides a significant contribution to the understanding of smart home adoption factors. However, there are a few areas that require attention to strengthen the manuscript before it can be considered for publication. I hope you find these comments constructive and useful for revising your paper.

1. Please consider adding a new section "Related Work" that discusses previous systematic literature reviews (SLRs) conducted on smart home adoption. This will aid in contextualizing your study's contribution to the existing body of knowledge and give readers a clear understanding of how your work adds to or builds upon prior research.

2. It's essential to provide evidence of the reliability and validity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in your literature search. A robust and comprehensive literature search underpins the findings of any systematic review, and showing how your criteria were developed and applied will enhance the transparency and rigor of your study.

3. The reviewers and I suggest that the manuscript should address the practical implications of your findings for policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders. Such insights will make your study more valuable to a broader audience, not only to academics but also those who are directly involved in the development and implementation of smart home technologies.

4. Ensure that the manuscript sufficiently addresses the theoretical contributions of your study. The application of the Technological Acceptance Model, the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour to the context of smart home adoption is commendable. However, further discussion is required on how your study contributes to advancing our theoretical understanding of the topic. Highlight how your findings add nuance to these theories or propose new theoretical frameworks or constructs.

As you revise your manuscript, remember that you only need to include the reviewers' suggested references if they're directly relevant to your study. Unnecessary references may dilute the focus of your work. Looking forward to your revised manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

The researchers stated that smart homes represent the complement of various automation technologies that together make up a network of devices facilitating the daily tasks of residents. These technologies are being studied for their application from different sectors, including the projection of their use to improve energy consumption planning and health care management. However, technology adoption depends on social awareness within the scope of cognitive advantages and innovations compared to perceived risk because although there are multiple benefits, potential users express fears related to the loss of autonomy and security. This study carries out a systematic literature review based on PRISMA in order to analyze research trends and literary evolution in the technological adoption of smart homes, considering the main theories and variables applied by the community. In proposing a research agenda in accordance with the identified gaps and the growing and emerging themes of the object of study, it is worth highlighting the growing interest in the subject, both for the present and its development in the future. Until now, adoption factors have been attributed more to the technological acceptance model and the diffusion of innovation theory, adopting components of the Theory of Planned Behavior; therefore, in several cases, the attributes of different theories are merged to adapt to the needs of each researcher, promoting the creation of empirical and extended models. However, the research paper demonstrates low level of understanding of the relevant literature in the field and did not cite an appropriate range of literature sources. Methodology is weak; more rigorous analyses is needed along with the research objectives. Analyses and findings are presented in a weak manner as to present new ideas. Also, the research has not proper discussion. Though, the paper needs improvements in order to meet the standards of this journal.

Reviewer #2: This paper provides a comprehensive literature review into the relevant domain of smart home adoption factors, and stands justified by the interesting observation that the current growth of concerning technologies are not meeting the expectations of previously set forecasts, as well as that there are currently many reservations that unaware individuals have of these technologies. There is a welcomed contribution in that they articulate a problematization of the field through research gaps identified in table 3, consequently following from a derivation of key concepts in table 2.

While the paper is fundamentally warranted on these grounds, the following points need to be addressed:

On line 37, consider providing a context for readers who are unfamiliar with the advent of the 'fourth industrial revolution' - a sentence or two should be helpful.

On line 67, you relate that 'its application reduces the cost' - is this the cost of the concerning health care management strategy? Consider rephrasing this.

There is an unhelpful overlap of the same concept conveyed twice when discussing the perceived risk of smart home adoption, as follows:

* Near line 62: "there is also a certain fear linked to the loss of autonomy and privacy at home"

* Near line 75: "distrust, anxiety about technology, and potential perceived risks such as threats to privacy and security"

Consider combining the ideas of these disjoint parts into a single discussion point.

With regard to the development of the search strategy, it can be difficult for the lay reader to interpret the search equations provided, especially given that the nature of the language used to implement the search criteria is not explicitly articulated as a footnote or annotation of the strategy. For this reason, the reader would benefit from a colloquial description of the strategy eg. 'we searched documentation for which the keywords (presumably) contained the clauses "smart house", "smart home", etc.'

It is recommended that these points be addressed before the paper is accepted for publication.

Reviewer #3: Review: Smart Home Adoption Factors: A systematic literature review and research agenda

Introduction

I am pleased to provide my comments on the paper titled "Smart Home Adoption Factors: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda." This study ambitiously explores the multi-faceted aspects of smart home technology adoption, providing a comprehensive overview of the topic's historical and current perspectives. The authors should be lauded for their systematic approach in using the PRISMA model to conduct their literature review, which allows for a thorough and meticulous inspection of existing research trends in this area.

The paper seeks to identify the key drivers and barriers to adopting smart home technology. This area has gained significant attention due to digital transformation and the rising demand for energy efficiency and advanced healthcare solutions. The paper's core argument centres on technological feasibility, societal perception, and the individual's perceived risks and benefits, revealing a complex interplay that ultimately shapes adoption behaviour.

The authors draw upon established theories, such as the Technological Acceptance Model, the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, while recognising the need to adapt or expand to suit the unique context of smart home adoption. This provides a promising starting point but raises a few critical points that may warrant further attention.

Overall, the paper provides a foundation for understanding the determinants of smart home adoption. It opens up new avenues of research, setting the stage for further exploration in a rapidly evolving field. However, certain areas may benefit from further development and refinement to enhance the paper's utility for future research. The authors' continued work in this area is eagerly anticipated.

Major issues

Page 9, Information sources: The authors argued that SCOPUS and the Web of Science are "currently the two most important bibliographic" sources. However, this argument means the authors only looked for indexed papers within these two databases. This issue should raise a question about the exclusion criteria they adopted. Does the adoption of this search strategy related to quality issues? Comprehensiveness? Or beliefs that other sources are not as "important"? The authors should justify not expanding their search for Journals that are yet to be indexed. The IoT field is relatively new. Therefore it is expected that new journals are not indexed and may contain unreviewed manuscripts. Limiting the search for two databases a potential bias.

Page 40, Fig. 1 (PRISMA):

1- In the second stage: there are 16 excluded papers. There needs to be a mention of the reasons for excluding these studies.

2- The third stage: there are 139 non-retrieved papers. This number represents 77% of the total number of studies. What are the reasons behind not retrieving these papers? The number is large to be ignored.

On page 11, the authors mentioned reasons for excluding the papers, which should also be included in the PRISMA flowchart with the specific number of papers excluded by reason. Also, I find it hard to understand how indexed papers in SCOPUS and the Web of Science do not provide full text. I can understand this issue for a few studies but not for 77% of the studies identified.

Pages 12 and 13: The authors present a timeline (Fig. 2) for the number of publications on the subject over the years. The regression line does not provide any useful information. I am unsure how they calculated such a correlation and regression with these few points. A simple representation as a time series would be sufficient. Moreover, since the studies are not included in the review due to the lack of access to the full text, I am also unsure how they are included in the analysis. This issue applies to the other parts, publications by countries, journals, and authors.

Pages 14 and 15 (Thematic components): Again, the number of studies reviewed are 12, yet, I find the authors refer to a larger number of studies, including those dropped due to not being accessed. Suppose the authors refer only to the 12 studies analysed. This analysis cannot be considered reliable as the number of studies is too small to represent the overall thematic analysis.

In Fig. 7, the label on the y-axis is the average year. I find this labelling confusing, given the nature of the data type to have an average. It would be more appropriate to use a median year rather than an average statistically. Also, as a best practice in data visualisation, each figure title should indicate the number of studies included (sample size). I find it hard to understand if these figures are for 12 studies only or 180 studies.

Table 1: The number of studies presented is eleven. Does one of these studies not have a theoretical framework?

Minor issues

Figure 7 can benefit from higher resolution as it is hard to read unless the paper is zoomed in.

ICT on page 15 is mentioned without spelling the entire definition before using the acronym.

The methodology lacks many best practices in systematic reviews. The search process shows potential bias in the datasets used for this review. The authors do not present a table summarising the results (a matrix table) that includes all the studies with data extracted from each primary study. This table is a standard practice in systematic reviews that allows the reader to follow the different aspects of each study. Moreover, as in Table 1, the number of studies is less than the final number. A comprehensive table of features extracted allows better follow-up and data summarising. A comprehensive table can be used for producing summary statistics. Another major issue is the analysis of 180 studies in certain parts and then shifting to the primary 12 studies in other parts. The discussion is easy to follow and well-written.

The effort in this paper is appreciated. However, it needs improvement on many levels. Therefore, I feel it should not be considered for publication on this occasion. Major improvements are needed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Abdul Karim Obeid

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0292558. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292558.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Sep 2023

PLEASE LOOK AT THE ATTACHMENT SINCE THE RESPONSE LETTER HERE IS DISCONFIGURED DUE TO HAVING A TABLE

September 12th, 2023

Dear

PLOS ONE – Editorial Team

Kind regards

In accordance with the suggestions of the reviewers in our article “Smart home adoption factors: A systematic literature review and research agenda”, the following changes were made, properly marked with red letters in the article:

Subject Revisor Comment Answer

General Journal requierements 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf The manuscript is verified to meet PLOS ONE requirements in terms of format and style.

Journal requierements 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. After the conclusions section, a "Data Availability Statement" section is added, publishing the data in the Zenodo open repository, yielding the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8336122

Journal requierements 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Subtitles are added according to the journal's guidelines and the number of all citations is adjusted at the end of the application of all reviewer corrections

Editor Comments 1. Please consider adding a new section "Related Work" that discusses previous systematic literature reviews (SLRs) conducted on smart home adoption. This will aid in contextualizing your study's contribution to the existing body of knowledge and give readers a clear understanding of how your work adds to or builds upon prior research. There was a section "Other studies" that accounts for what was requested. In that sense, the name of the previous section is replaced by the one recommended by the editor

Editor Comments 2. It's essential to provide evidence of the reliability and validity of the inclusion and exclusion criteria used in your literature search. A robust and comprehensive literature search underpins the findings of any systematic review, and showing how your criteria were developed and applied will enhance the transparency and rigor of your study. References are added that justify the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the article

Editor Comments 3. The reviewers and I suggest that the manuscript should address the practical implications of your findings for policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders. Such insights will make your study more valuable to a broader audience, not only to academics but also those who are directly involved in the development and implementation of smart home technologies. An additional 5 paragraphs of practical implications are added that address the dimensions recommended by the reviewers and the editor, mentioning implications for policy makers, professionals and other interested parties such as the educational context and developers of this type of systems

Editor Comments 4. Ensure that the manuscript sufficiently addresses the theoretical contributions of your study. The application of the Technological Acceptance Model, the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour to the context of smart home adoption is commendable. However, further discussion is required on how your study contributes to advancing our theoretical understanding of the topic. Highlight how your findings add nuance to these theories or propose new theoretical frameworks or constructs. A section called "theoretical contributions" is added in response to what was requested by the editor. This section also proposes a theoretical model that includes the main theories and variables of smart home adoption.

Reviewers' comments Reviewer 1 The researchers stated that smart homes represent the complement of various automation technologies that together make up a network of devices facilitating the daily tasks of residents. These technologies are being studied for their application from different sectors, including the projection of their use to improve energy consumption planning and health care management. However, technology adoption depends on social awareness within the scope of cognitive advantages and innovations compared to perceived risk because although there are multiple benefits, potential users express fears related to the loss of autonomy and security. This study carries out a systematic literature review based on PRISMA in order to analyze research trends and literary evolution in the technological adoption of smart homes, considering the main theories and variables applied by the community. In proposing a research agenda in accordance with the identified gaps and the growing and emerging themes of the object of study, it is worth highlighting the growing interest in the subject, both for the present and its development in the future. Until now, adoption factors have been attributed more to the technological acceptance model and the diffusion of innovation theory, adopting components of the Theory of Planned Behavior; therefore, in several cases, the attributes of different theories are merged to adapt to the needs of each researcher, promoting the creation of empirical and extended models. However, the research paper demonstrates low level of understanding of the relevant literature in the field and did not cite an appropriate range of literature sources. Methodology is weak; more rigorous analyses is needed along with the research objectives. Analyses and findings are presented in a weak manner as to present new ideas. Also, the research has not proper discussion. Though, the paper needs improvements in order to meet the standards of this journal. On the one hand, the methodology section of the article is strengthened, adding subsections recommended by the PRISMA declaration, to provide greater rigor. Likewise, the reason why more articles are not included in the literature review process is mentioned, justifying the final 12 articles in the inability to access full text to a significant amount of data, which is mentioned in the biases. of the study, as well as the limitations. Finally, the rigor in the presentation of findings is expanded, synthesizing information and adding "theoretical contributions" through which, on the one hand, the contributions of the article are strengthened, and, on the other hand, the structure of the section is improved. Discussion, based on comments, also, from other reviewers

Reviewer 2 While the paper is fundamentally warranted on these grounds, the following points need to be addressed:

On line 37, consider providing a context for readers who are unfamiliar with the advent of the 'fourth industrial revolution' - a sentence or two should be helpful. A short sentence is added that explains what the Fourth Industrial Revolution is

Reviewer 2 On line 67, you relate that 'its application reduces the cost' - is this the cost of the concerning health care management strategy? Consider rephrasing this. The phrase "of healthcare" is added to clarify what is reducing the cost in this context

Reviewer 2 There is an unhelpful overlap of the same concept conveyed twice when discussing the perceived risk of smart home adoption, as follows:

* Near line 62: "there is also a certain fear linked to the loss of autonomy and privacy at home"

* Near line 75: "distrust, anxiety about technology, and potential perceived risks such as threats to privacy and security"

Consider combining the ideas of these disjoint parts into a single discussion point. The second paragraph in question is subtracted, as it repeats the information stipulated in the previous paragraph, in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion

Reviewer 2 With regard to the development of the search strategy, it can be difficult for the lay reader to interpret the search equations provided, especially given that the nature of the language used to implement the search criteria is not explicitly articulated as a footnote or annotation of the strategy. For this reason, the reader would benefit from a colloquial description of the strategy eg. 'we searched documentation for which the keywords (presumably) contained the clauses "smart house", "smart home", etc.' A paragraph is added after the equations, explicitly explaining what is intended with both search equations in simple and easy to interpret terms.

Reviewer 3 Major issues

Page 9, Information sources: The authors argued that SCOPUS and the Web of Science are "currently the two most important bibliographic" sources. However, this argument means the authors only looked for indexed papers within these two databases. This issue should raise a question about the exclusion criteria they adopted. Does the adoption of this search strategy related to quality issues? Comprehensiveness? Or beliefs that other sources are not as "important"? The authors should justify not expanding their search for Journals that are yet to be indexed. The IoT field is relatively new. Therefore it is expected that new journals are not indexed and may contain unreviewed manuscripts. Limiting the search for two databases a potential bias. A section called "Risk of bias assessment" is added to the methodology, following the PRISMA-2020 guidelines, mentioning the existing limitation in the selection of information sources.

Reviewer 3 Page 40, Fig. 1 (PRISMA):

1- In the second stage: there are 16 excluded papers. There needs to be a mention of the reasons for excluding these studies.

2- The third stage: there are 139 non-retrieved papers. This number represents 77% of the total number of studies. What are the reasons behind not retrieving these papers? The number is large to be ignored. 1. The reason for exclusion of the 16 articles mentioned is mentioned in Figure 1, referring to the previously defined exclusion criteria.

2. In the paragraph immediately following the PRISMA flowchart, a justification is added as to why such a significant figure was excluded in terms of lack of access to full text.

Reviewer 3 On page 11, the authors mentioned reasons for excluding the papers, which should also be included in the PRISMA flowchart with the specific number of papers excluded by reason. Also, I find it hard to understand how indexed papers in SCOPUS and the Web of Science do not provide full text. I can understand this issue for a few studies but not for 77% of the studies identified. In the paragraph immediately following the PRISMA flowchart, a justification is added as to why such a significant figure was excluded in terms of lack of access to full text. Additionally, in the limitations of the study, it is added that the results are not absolutely conclusive due to the low final number of articles included in the literature review.

Reviewer 3 Pages 12 and 13: The authors present a timeline (Fig. 2) for the number of publications on the subject over the years. The regression line does not provide any useful information. I am unsure how they calculated such a correlation and regression with these few points. A simple representation as a time series would be sufficient. Moreover, since the studies are not included in the review due to the lack of access to the full text, I am also unsure how they are included in the analysis. This issue applies to the other parts, publications by countries, journals, and authors. In accordance with the suggestions made for the bibliometric part of the present systematic review, all figures and their respective analyzes are excluded, retaining only everything derived from the 12 articles finally included according to the designed criteria.

Reviewer 3 Pages 14 and 15 (Thematic components): Again, the number of studies reviewed are 12, yet, I find the authors refer to a larger number of studies, including those dropped due to not being accessed. Suppose the authors refer only to the 12 studies analysed. This analysis cannot be considered reliable as the number of studies is too small to represent the overall thematic analysis. In accordance with the suggestions made for the bibliometric part of the present systematic review, all figures and their respective analyzes are excluded, retaining only everything derived from the 12 articles finally included according to the designed criteria.

Reviewer 3 In Fig. 7, the label on the y-axis is the average year. I find this labelling confusing, given the nature of the data type to have an average. It would be more appropriate to use a median year rather than an average statistically. Also, as a best practice in data visualisation, each figure title should indicate the number of studies included (sample size). I find it hard to understand if these figures are for 12 studies only or 180 studies. In accordance with the suggestions made for the bibliometric part of the present systematic review, all figures and their respective analyzes are excluded, retaining only everything derived from the 12 articles finally included according to the designed criteria.

Reviewer 3 Table 1: The number of studies presented is eleven. Does one of these studies not have a theoretical framework? Each of the studies presents a theoretical framework, through which each of the hypotheses was established for the validation of the theoretical model that, therefore, would be analyzed in the present systematic literature review. Furthermore, based on these theoretical frameworks, an adoption model that includes the main models and variables of the research is proposed in the "theoretical contributions" section.

Reviewer 3 Minor issues

Figure 7 can benefit from higher resolution as it is hard to read unless the paper is zoomed in.

ICT on page 15 is mentioned without spelling the entire definition before using the acronym. Figure 7 is eliminated, as part of the restructuring of the bibliometric elements of the article. In addition, the explanation of the acronym TIC is added to the page in question.

Reviewer 3 The methodology lacks many best practices in systematic reviews. The search process shows potential bias in the datasets used for this review. The authors do not present a table summarising the results (a matrix table) that includes all the studies with data extracted from each primary study. This table is a standard practice in systematic reviews that allows the reader to follow the different aspects of each study. Moreover, as in Table 1, the number of studies is less than the final number. A comprehensive table of features extracted allows better follow-up and data summarising. A comprehensive table can be used for producing summary statistics. Another major issue is the analysis of 180 studies in certain parts and then shifting to the primary 12 studies in other parts. The discussion is easy to follow and well-written. On the one hand, the subsection "assessment of the risk of bias" of the research is added. A matrix table is also presented that accounts for the 12 studies included in the systematic literature review. Likewise, the frequency is added to Table 1 (Then Table 2, after adding the summary table) accounting for the number of studies that have validated each theory, this being supported by the summary table. Finally, according to several recommendations, the bibliometric phase is excluded, where 180 articles were analyzed, and only the 12 articles that passed the 3 exclusion phases were analyzed.

We look forward to your comments and hope to hear from you soon.

Thank you very much

_

The authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response letter_PlosOne.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mohammed A Al-Sharafi

25 Sep 2023

Smart home adoption factors: A systematic literature review and research agenda

PONE-D-23-13511R1

Dear Dr. Valencia-Arias,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammed A. Al-Sharafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

The researchers stated that smart homes represent the complement of various automation technologies that together make up a network of devices facilitating the daily tasks of residents. These technologies are being studied for their application from different sectors, including the projection of their use to improve energy consumption planning and health care management. However, technology adoption depends on social awareness within the scope of cognitive advantages and innovations compared to perceived risk because although there are multiple benefits, potential users express fears related to the loss of autonomy and security. This study carries out a systematic literature review based on PRISMA in order to analyze research trends and literary evolution in the technological adoption of smart homes, considering the main theories and variables applied by the community. In proposing a research agenda in accordance with the identified gaps and the growing and emerging themes of the object of study, it is worth highlighting the growing interest in the subject, both for the present and its development in the future. Until now, adoption factors have been attributed more to the technological acceptance model and the diffusion of innovation theory, adopting components of the Theory of Planned Behavior; therefore, in several cases, the attributes of different theories are merged to adapt to the needs of each researcher, promoting the creation of empirical and extended models. Indeed, the current revised paper shows a proper enhancement on the relevant literature, methodology, and most importantly the discussion and conclusions.

Reviewer #3: The response provided by the authors to my comments is satisfactory. There are still some improvements regarding the potential bias in their search methodology. However, they tried to explain their choices and addressed this potential bias as a limitation. They removed the figures that were unnecessary as recommended. Also, I find a consolidated table of attributes of the studies would have been more beneficial that the current employed tabulation in the study. However, I find following the logic comprehensible. As a final decision, I feel the manuscript in its current form is suitable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Osama Abdelhay

**********

Acceptance letter

Mohammed A Al-Sharafi

12 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-13511R1

Smart home adoption factors: A systematic literature review and research agenda

Dear Dr. Valencia-Arias:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohammed A. Al-Sharafi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter_PlosOne.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data availability statement for this study has been duly recorded and archived in the Zenodo open data repository, a repository recognized for its commitment to the accessibility and preservation of scientific data. The data and materials supported by this study are publicly available and can be accessed at the following DOI link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8381268. This repository ensures the availability of and access to the underlying data used in research, promoting transparency and reproducibility of results, thereby enhancing the reliability and utility of scientific research.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES