Exploring Older Adults’ Perspectives and Acceptance of AI-Driven Health Technologies: Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied in various health care services due to its enhanced efficiency and accuracy. As the population ages, AI-based health technologies could be a potent tool in older adults' health care to address growing, complex, and challenging health needs. This study aimed to investigate perspectives on and acceptability of the use of AI-led health technologies among older adults and the potential challenges that they face in adopting them. The findings from this inquiry could inform the designing of more acceptable and user-friendly AI-based health technologies. Objective: The objectives of the study were (1) to investigate the attitudes and perceptions of older adults toward the use of AI-based health technologies; (2) to identify potential facilitators, barriers, and challenges influencing older adults' preferences toward AI-based health technologies; and (3) to inform strategies that can promote and facilitate the use of AI-based health technologies among older adults. Methods: This study adopted a qualitative descriptive design. A total of 27 community-dwelling older adults were recruited from a local community center. Three sessions of semistructured interviews were conducted, each lasting 1 hour. The sessions covered five key areas: (1) general impressions of AI-based health technologies; (2) previous experiences with AI-based health technologies; (3) perceptions and attitudes toward AI-based health technologies; (4) anticipated difficulties in using AI-based health technologies and underlying reasons; and (5) willingness, preferences, and motivations for accepting AI-based health technologies. Thematic analysis was applied for data analysis. The Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) model behavior change wheel were integrated into the analysis. Identified theoretical domains were mapped directly to the COM-B model to determine corresponding strategies for enhancing the acceptability of AI-based health technologies among older adults. Results: The analysis identified 9 of the 14 Theoretical Domains Framework domains-knowledge, skills, social influences, environmental context and resources, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, intentions, goals, and emotion. These domains were mapped to 6 components of the COM-B model. While most participants acknowledged the potential benefits of AI-based health technologies, they emphasized the irreplaceable role of human expertise and interaction. Participants expressed concerns about the usability of AI technologies, highlighting the need for user-friendly and tailored AI solutions. Privacy concerns and the importance of robust security measures were also emphasized as critical factors affecting their willingness to adopt AI-based health technologies. Conclusions: Integrating AI as a supportive tool alongside health care providers, rather than regarding it as a replacement, was highlighted as a key strategy for promoting acceptance. Government support and clear guidelines are needed to promote ethical AI implementation in health care. These measures can improve health outcomes in the older adult population by encouraging the adoption of AI-driven health technologies.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».