Embodied Conversational Agents for Patients With Dementia: Thematic Literature Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As the world's population rapidly ages, the number of older adults with cognitive impairment will also increase. Several studies have identified numerous complex needs of people with dementia, which assistive technologies still fail to support. Recent trends have led to an increasing focus on the use of embodied conversational agents (ECAs) as virtual entities able to interact with a person through natural and familiar verbal and nonverbal communication. The use of ECAs could improve the accessibility and acceptance of assistive technologies matching those high-level needs that are not well covered to date. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this thematic literature analysis was to map current studies in the field of designing ECAs for patients with dementia in order to identify the existing research trend and possible gaps that need to be covered in the near future. The review questions in this study were as follows: (1) what research frameworks are used to study the interaction between patients with dementia and ECAs? (2) what are the findings? and (3) what are the barriers reported in these studies? METHODS: Separate literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases by using specific umbrella phrases to target the population (patients with dementia) and the technology-based intervention (embodied conversational agent). Studies that met the inclusion criteria were appraised through the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and then discussed in a thematic analysis. RESULTS: The search process identified 115 records from the databases and study references. After duplicates (n=45) were removed, 70 papers remained for the initial screening. A total of 7 studies were finally included in the qualitative synthesis. A thematic analysis of the reviewed studies identified major themes and subthemes: the research frameworks used to gather users' perspectives on ECAs (theme 1), the insights shared by the 7 studies as well as the value of user involvement in the development phases and the challenge of matching the system functionalities with the users' needs (theme 2), and the main methodological and technical problems faced by each study team (theme 3). CONCLUSIONS: Our thematic literature analysis shows that the field of ECAs is novel and poorly discussed in the scientific community and that more sophisticated study designs and proofs of efficacy of the approach are required. Therefore, by analyzing the main topic of the narrative review, this study underscores the challenge of synchronizing and harmonizing knowledge, efforts, and challenges in the dementia care field and its person-centered paradigm through the user-centered design approach. Enabling strict collaboration between interdisciplinary research networks, medical scientists, technology developers, patients, and their formal and informal caregivers is still a great challenge in the field of technologies for older adults.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».