How Time, Living Situation, and Stress Related to Technology Influence User Acceptance and Usability of a Socialization Service for Older Adults and Their Formal and Informal Caregivers: Six-Month Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Considering the growing population of older adults, addressing the influence of loneliness among this demographic group has become imperative, especially due to the link between social isolation and deterioration of mental and physical well-being. Technology has the potential to be used to create innovative solutions to increase socialization and potentially promote healthy aging. Objective: This 6-month study examined the usability and acceptability of a technology-based socialization service and explored how stress and living situation affect older adults' and their ecosystem's perceptions of technology, investigating cross-sectional and longitudinal differences among and across user groups. Methods: Participants were recruited in Tuscany and Apulia (Italy) through a network of social cooperatives and a research hospital, respectively. A total of 20 older adults were provided with the same technology installed on a tablet and on a smart television. The technology has three functionalities: video calling, playing games, and sharing news. Additionally, 20 informal caregivers (IC) and 13 formal caregivers (FC) connected to the older adults were included in the study. After both initial training in the use of the system (T0) and 6 months of using the system (T6), questionnaires on usability, acceptability, and technostress were filled in by older adults, IC, and FC. Nonparametric or parametric tests were conducted to investigate group differences at both time points and changes over time. Additional analyses on older adults were done to assess whether differences in usability and acceptability were related to living situation (ie, alone or with someone). Furthermore, correlation analyses were performed between usability, acceptability, and stress toward technology at T0 and T6. Results: At both T0 and T6, older adults had lower usability scores than IC and FC and higher anxiety than IC. Over time, there was a significant decrease in older adults' attitudes toward technology score, depicting a negative attitude over time (T0 median 4.2, IQR 0.5; T6 median 3.7, IQR 0.8; Cohen d=0.7), while there was no change for IC and FC. At T0, those living alone had lower acceptability than those living with someone but this difference disappeared at T6. People or participants living with someone had a decline in anxiety, attitudes toward technology, enjoyment, and perceived usefulness. Stress toward technology affected usability and acceptability in the older adult group entering the study (ρ=-.85) but this was not observed after 6 months. In the IC group, stress affected trust at T0 (ρ=-.23) but not at T6. Conclusions: At the start of the study, older adults judged the system to be less usable and more stressful than did the caregivers. Indeed, at first, technostress was correlated with usability and acceptability; however, with repeated use, technostress did not influence the perception of technology. Overall, getting accustomed to technology decreased anxiety and stress toward technology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".