Caregiver Expectations of Interfacing With Voice Assistants to Support Complex Home Care: Mixed Methods Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Providing care in home environments is complex, and often the pressure is on caregivers to document information and ensure care continuity. Digital information management and communication technologies may support care coordination among caregivers. However, they have yet to be adopted in this context, partly because of issues with supporting long-term disease progression and caregiver anxiety. Voice assistant (VA) technology is a promising method for interfacing with digital health information that may aid in multiple aspects of being a caregiver, thereby influencing adoption. Understanding the expectations for VAs to support caregivers is fundamental to inform the practical development of this technology. OBJECTIVE: This study explored caregivers' perspectives on using VA technology to support caregiving and inform the design of future digital technologies in complex home care. METHODS: This study was part of a larger study of caregivers across North America on the design of digital health technologies to support health communication and information management in complex home care. Caregivers included parents, guardians, and hired caregivers such as personal support workers and home care nurses. Video interviews were conducted with caregivers to capture their mental models on the potential application of VAs in complex home care and were theoretically analyzed using the technology acceptance model. Interviews were followed up with Likert-scale questions exploring perspectives on other VA applications beyond participants' initial perceptions. RESULTS: Data were collected from 22 caregivers, and 3 themes were identified: caregivers' perceived usefulness of VAs in supporting documentation, care coordination, and person-centered care; caregivers' perceived ease of use in navigating information efficiently (they also had usability concerns with this interaction method); and caregivers' concerns, excitement, expected costs, and previous experience with VAs that influenced their attitudes toward use. From the Likert-scale questions, most participants (21/22, 95%) agreed that VAs should support prompted information recording and retrieval, and all participants (22/22, 100%) agreed that they should provide reminders. They also agreed that VAs should support them in an emergency (18/22, 82%)-but only for calling emergency services-and guide caregivers through tasks (21/22, 95%). However, participants were less agreeable on VAs expressing a personality (14/22, 64%)-concerned they would manipulate caregivers' perceptions-and listening ambiently to remind caregivers about their documentation (16/22, 73%). They were much less agreeable about VAs providing unprompted assistance on caregiving tasks (9/22, 41%). CONCLUSIONS: The interviews and Likert-scale results point toward the potential for VAs to support family caregivers and hired caregivers by easing their information management and health communication at home. However, beyond information interaction, the potential impact of VA personality traits on caregivers' perceptions of the care situation and the passive collection of audio data to improve user experience through context-specific interactions are critical design considerations that should be further examined.
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.
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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 découle