Acceptability of a Health Care App With 3 User Interfaces for Older Adults and Their Caregivers: Design and Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The older population needs solutions for independent living and reducing the burden on caregivers while maintaining the quality and dignity of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to design, develop, and evaluate an older adult health care app that supports trained caregivers (ie, formal caregivers) and relatives (ie, informal caregivers). We aimed to identify the factors that affect user acceptance of interfaces depending on the user's role. METHODS: We designed and developed an app with 3 user interfaces that enable remote sensing of an older adult's daily activities and behaviors. We conducted user evaluations (N=25) with older adults and their formal and informal caregivers to obtain an overall impression of the health care monitoring app in terms of user experience and usability. In our design study, the participants had firsthand experience with our app, followed by a questionnaire and individual interview to express their opinions on the app. Through the interview, we also identified their views on each user interface and interaction modality to identify the relationship between the user's role and their acceptance of a particular interface. The questionnaire answers were statistically analyzed, and we coded the interview answers based on keywords related to a participant's experience, for example, ease of use and usefulness. RESULTS: We obtained overall positive results in the user evaluation of our app regarding key aspects such as efficiency, perspicuity, dependability, stimulation, and novelty, with an average between 1.74 (SD 1.02) and 2.18 (SD 0.93) on a scale of -3.0 to 3.0. The overall impression of our app was favorable, and we identified that "simple" and "intuitive" were the main factors affecting older adults' and caregivers' preference for the user interface and interaction modality. We also identified a positive user acceptance of the use of augmented reality by 91% (10/11) of the older adults to share information with their formal and informal caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: To address the need for a study to evaluate the user experience and user acceptance by older adults as well as both formal and informal caregivers regarding the user interfaces with multimodal interaction in the context of health monitoring, we designed, developed, and conducted user evaluations with the target user groups. Our results through this design study show important implications for designing future health monitoring apps with multiple interaction modalities and intuitive user interfaces in the older adult health care domain.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".