Older Adults’ Perceptions About Using Intelligent Toilet Seats Beyond Traditional Care: Web-Based Interview Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In contemporary society, age tech (age technology) represents a significant advancement in health care aimed at enhancing patient engagement, ensuring sustained independence, and promoting quality of life for older people. One innovative form of age tech is the intelligent toilet seat, which is designed to collect, analyze, and provide insights based on toileting logs and excreta data. Understanding how older people perceive and interact with such technology can offer invaluable insights to researchers, technology developers, and vendors. OBJECTIVE: This study examined older adults' perspectives regarding the use of intelligent toilet seats. Through a qualitative methodology, this research aims to unearth the nuances of older people's opinions, shedding light on their preferences, concerns, and potential barriers to adoption. METHODS: Data were collected using a web-based interview survey distributed on Amazon Mechanical Turk. The analyzed data set comprised 174 US-based individuals aged ≥65 years who voluntarily participated in this study. The qualitative data were carefully analyzed using NVivo (Lumivero) based on detailed content analysis, ensuring that emerging themes were coded and classified based on the conceptual similarities in the respondents' narratives. RESULTS: The analysis revealed 5 dominant themes encompassing the opinions of aging adults. The perceived benefits and advantages of using the intelligent toilet seat were grouped into 3 primary themes: health-related benefits including the potential for early disease detection, continuous health monitoring, and seamless connection to health care insights. Technology-related advantages include the noninvasive nature of smart toilet seats and leveraging unique and innovative data collection and analysis technology. Use-related benefits include ease of use, potential for multiple users, and cost reduction owing to the reduced need for frequent clinical visits. Conversely, the concerns and perceived risks were classified into 2 significant themes: psychological concerns, which included concerns about embarrassment and aging-related stereotypes, and the potential emotional impact of constant health monitoring. Technical performance risks include concerns centered on privacy and security, device reliability, data accuracy, potential malfunctions, and the implications of false positives or negatives. CONCLUSIONS: The decision of older adults to incorporate intelligent toilet seats into their daily lives depends on myriad factors. Although the potential health and technological benefits are evident, valid concerns that need to be addressed remain. To foster widespread adoption, it is imperative to enhance the advantages while simultaneously addressing and mitigating the identified risks. This balanced approach will pave the way for a more holistic integration of smart health care devices into the routines of the older population, ensuring that they reap the full benefits of age tech advancements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".