Exploring Older Adults’ Beliefs About the Use of Intelligent Assistants for Consumer Health Information Management: A Participatory Design Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intelligent assistants (IAs), also known as intelligent agents, use artificial intelligence to help users achieve a goal or complete a task. IAs represent a potential solution for providing older adults with individualized assistance at home, for example, to reduce social isolation, serve as memory aids, or help with disease management. However, to design IAs for health that are beneficial and accepted by older adults, it is important to understand their beliefs about IAs, how they would like to interact with IAs for consumer health, and how they desire to integrate IAs into their homes. OBJECTIVE: We explore older adults' mental models and beliefs about IAs, the tasks they want IAs to support, and how they would like to interact with IAs for consumer health. For the purpose of this study, we focus on IAs in the context of consumer health information management and search. METHODS: We present findings from an exploratory, qualitative study that investigated older adults' perspectives of IAs that aid with consumer health information search and management tasks. Eighteen older adults participated in a multiphase, participatory design workshop in which we engaged them in discussion, brainstorming, and design activities that helped us identify their current challenges managing and finding health information at home. We also explored their beliefs and ideas for an IA to assist them with consumer health tasks. We used participatory design activities to identify areas in which they felt IAs might be useful, but also to uncover the reasoning behind the ideas they presented. Discussions were audio-recorded and later transcribed. We compiled design artifacts collected during the study to supplement researcher transcripts and notes. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. RESULTS: We found that participants saw IAs as potentially useful for providing recommendations, facilitating collaboration between themselves and other caregivers, and for alerts of serious illness. However, they also desired familiar and natural interactions with IAs (eg, using voice) that could, if need be, provide fluid and unconstrained interactions, reason about their symptoms, and provide information or advice. Other participants discussed the need for flexible IAs that could be used by those with low technical resources or skills. CONCLUSIONS: From our findings, we present a discussion of three key components of participants' mental models, including the people, behaviors, and interactions they described that were important for IAs for consumer health information management and seeking. We then discuss the role of access, transparency, caregivers, and autonomy in design for addressing participants' concerns about privacy and trust as well as its role in assisting others that may interact with an IA on the older adults' behalf. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1145/3240925.3240972.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it