Co-Designing a Conversational Agent With Older Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Who Age in Place: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a reaction to the global demographic increase in older adults (aged 60+ years), policy makers call for initiatives to enable healthy aging. This includes a focus on person-centered care and access to long-term care for older adults, such as developing different services and digital health technologies. This can enable patients to engage in their health and reduce the burden on the health care systems and health care professionals. The European Union project Smart Inclusive Living Environments (SMILE) focuses on well-being and aging in place using new digital health technologies. The novelty of the SMILE project is the use of a cocreational approach focused on the needs and preferences of older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in technology development, to enhance access, adaptation, and usability and to reduce stigma. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to describe the perspective, needs, and preferences of older adults living with COPD in the context of the design and development of a conversational agent. METHODS: This study carried out a data-driven thematic analysis of interview data from 11 cocreation workshops with 33 older adults living with COPD. RESULTS: The three particular features that the workshop participants wanted to implement in a new technology were (1) a "my health" function, to use technology to manage and learn more about their condition; (2) a "daily activities" function, including an overview and information about social and physical activities in their local area; and (3) a "sleep" function, to manage circadian rhythm and enhance sleep quality, for example, through online video guides. In total, 2 overarching themes were identified for the 3 functions: measurements, which were actively discussed and received mixed interest among the participants, and health literacy, due to an overall interest in learning more about their condition in relation to everyday life. CONCLUSIONS: The future design of digital health technology must embrace the complexities of the everyday life of an older adult living with COPD and cater to their needs and preferences. Measurements should be optional and personalized, and digital solutions should be used as a supplement to health care professionals, not as substitute.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".