Exploring interface design to support caregivers’ needs and feelings of trust in online content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Family caregivers of people living with dementia require a range of accurate, current, and reliable information throughout the care trajectory. Much of this information is available online, however it can be difficult for caregivers to identify and decide what content is relevant to them. Little is known about how online design cues impact family caregivers' decision to assess how trustworthy information is and whether to engage with it. METHODS: Our exploratory research focused on the interface design of CARE-RATE, an online search tool intended to support more effective information searches for family caregivers seeking dementia care-related resources. Data from focus groups were coupled with design literature to inform the development of three mockups that were evaluated by seven dementia caregiver experts. RESULTS: Participants preferred a search bar design because of its simplicity, familiarity, and functionality. Design elements that impact trust included logos from reputable organizations, transparency of content author, and ratings from other caregivers. CONCLUSION: Feelings of trust regarding information, including the ability to ascertain trustworthiness, is a major aspect of caregivers' willingness to engage with online content. Transparency and familiarity appear to be key elements that impact caregivers' trust in online information, which agrees with current web design research.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".