Family caregivers’ acceptance of Artificial Intelligence-enabled technologies for providing care to older adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies hold promise for assisting in the care of an aging population. Few studies have focused on exploring family caregivers’ (FCGs) behavioural intention of using such innovation, and even fewer have employed a technology acceptance framework. OBJECTIVE: This study examined FCGs of older adults’ behavioural intention of using AI-enabled technologies for caregiving. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a theory-based cross-sectional quantitative survey. Eligible FCGs for this study were: (1) aged 45–64; (2) residing in Quebec, Canada; (3) providing care for at least one older adult (65+); (4) having access to a computer or smartphone with internet connectivity; and, (5) having proficiency in reading and comprehending English or French. We adapted and expanded the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework to measure their behavioural intention of using AI-enabled technologies for caregiving. We used descriptive statistics and a random forest model to assess the most important predictive factors across nine variables and their direction of association with behavioural intention. The Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) guidelines was used for reporting the study’s results. RESULTS: Among the polling firm’s 100,000 panelists, 2740 eligible individuals were randomly chosen to receive an email invitation to the study. Of 465 panelists who opened the survey (i.e., unique visitors),199 were eligible and completed the online survey. The random forest model explained between 56% and 86% of the behavioural intention variance of using AI, with social influence demonstrating the highest predictive relevance as indicated by a 35% increase in mean-squared error once removed from the model. Among the nine variables considered, six demonstrated a positive association with behavioural intention. These variables included social influence, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, perceived trust, confidence in healthcare professionals’ advice for the use of AI-enabled technologies, and facilitating connditions. The variables perceived cost and technology anxiety indicated a negative association with behavioural intention. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our extended UTAUT model identified factors associated with FCGs' intention to use AI. While all nine variables contributed, attitudes toward AI within caregivers’ social circles was the strongest predictor. Stakeholders from industry, government, and healthcare can enhance the adoption of AI-enabled technologies in older adult care by leveraging facilitators and addressing barriers experienced by caregivers.
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 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 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 ».