Opportunities and Challenges for Augmented Reality in Family Caregiving: Qualitative Video Elicitation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although family caregivers play a critical role in care delivery, research has shown that they face significant physical, emotional, and informational challenges. One promising avenue to address some of caregivers' unmet needs is via the design of digital technologies that support caregivers' complex portfolio of responsibilities. Augmented reality (AR) applications, specifically, offer new affordances to aid caregivers as they perform care tasks in the home. OBJECTIVE: This study explored how AR might assist family caregivers with the delivery of home-based cancer care. The specific objectives were to shed light on challenges caregivers face where AR might help, investigate opportunities for AR to support caregivers, and understand the risks of AR exacerbating caregiver burdens. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative video elicitation study with clinicians and caregivers. We created 3 video elicitations that offer ways in which AR might support caregivers as they perform often high-stakes, unfamiliar, and anxiety-inducing tasks in postsurgical cancer care: wound care, drain care, and rehabilitative exercise. The elicitations show functional AR applications built using Unity Technologies software and Microsoft Hololens2. Using elicitations enabled us to avoid rediscovering known usability issues with current AR technologies, allowing us to focus on high-level, substantive feedback on potential future roles for AR in caregiving. Moreover, it enabled nonintrusive exploration of the inherently sensitive in-home cancer care context. RESULTS: We recruited 22 participants for our study: 15 clinicians (eg, oncologists and nurses) and 7 family caregivers. Our findings shed light on clinicians' and caregivers' perceptions of current information and communication challenges caregivers face as they perform important physical care tasks as part of cancer treatment plans. Most significant was the need to provide better and ongoing support for execution of caregiving tasks in situ, when and where the tasks need to be performed. Such support needs to be tailored to the specific needs of the patient, to the stress-impaired capacities of the caregiver, and to the time-constrained communication availability of clinicians. We uncover opportunities for AR technologies to potentially increase caregiver confidence and reduce anxiety by supporting the capture and review of images and videos and by improving communication with clinicians. However, our findings also suggest ways in which, if not deployed carefully, AR technologies might exacerbate caregivers' already significant burdens. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can inform both the design of future AR devices, software, and applications and the design of caregiver support interventions based on already available technology and processes. Our study suggests that AR technologies and the affordances they provide (eg, tailored support, enhanced monitoring and task accuracy, and improved communications) should be considered as a part of an integrated care journey involving multiple stakeholders, changing information needs, and different communication channels that blend in-person and internet-based synchronous and asynchronous care, illness, and recovery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".