Acceptance of a Digital Assistant (Anne4Care) for Older Adult Immigrants Living With Dementia: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is a need to develop and coordinate dementia care plans that use assistive technology for vulnerable groups such as immigrant populations. However, immigrant populations are seldom included in various stages of the development and implementation of assistive technology, which does not optimize technology acceptance. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the acceptance of a digital personal assistant, called Anne4Care, by older adult immigrants living with dementia in their own homes. METHODS: This study used a qualitative descriptive research design with naturalistic inquiry. A total of 13 older adults participated in this study. The participants were invited for 2 interviews. After an introduction of Anne4Care, the first interview examined the lives and needs of participants, their expectations, and previous experiences with assistive technology in daily life. Four months later, the second interview sought to understand facilitators and barriers, suggestions for modifications, and the role of health care professionals. Three semistructured interviews were conducted with health care professionals to examine the roles and challenges they experienced in the use and implementation of Anne4Care. Content analysis, using NVivo11, was performed on all transcripts. RESULTS: All 13 participants had an immigration background. There were 10 male and 3 female participants, with ages ranging from 52 to 83 years. Participants were diagnosed with an early-stage form of dementia or acquired brain injury. None of the older adult participants knew or used digital assistive technology at the beginning. They obtained assistance from health care professionals and family caregivers who explained and set up the technology. Four themes were found to be critical aspects of the acceptance of the digital personal assistant Anne4Care: (1) use of Anne4Care, (2) positive aspects of Anne4Care, (3) challenges with Anne4Care, and (4) expectations. Assistance at first increased the burden on health care professionals and families. After the initial effort, most health care professionals and families experienced that Anne4Care reduced their tasks and stress. Contributions of Anne4Care included companionship, help with daily tasks, and opportunities to communicate in multiple languages. On the other hand, some participants expressed anxiety toward the use of Anne4Care. Furthermore, the platform required an internet connection at home and Anne4Care could not be used outside the home. CONCLUSIONS: Although older adult immigrants living with dementia had no previous experience with digital assistive technology specifically, the acceptance of the digital personal assistant, called Anne4Care, by older adult immigrants living with dementia was rather high. The digital assistant can be further developed to allow for interactive conversations and for use outside of one's home. Participation of end users during various stages of the development, refinement, and implementation of health technology innovations is of utmost importance to maximize technology acceptance.
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».