Using Voice-Activated Technologies to Enhance Well-Being of Older Adults in Long-Term Care Homes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Information communication technologies (ICTs) can enhance older adults' health and well-being. Most research on the use of voice-activated ICTs by older adults has focused on the experiences of individuals living in the community, excluding those who live in long-term care homes. Given evidence of the potential benefits of such technologies to mitigate social isolation and loneliness, more research is needed about their impacts in long-term care home settings. With this in mind, we evaluated impacts and engagement of older adults with voice- and touchscreen-activated ICTs in one long-term care home in Canada. Research Design and Methods: Interviews were conducted with older adults who were provided with a Google Nest Hub Max and with staff as part of a larger implementation study. Participants completed semistructured interviews before the technology was implemented, and again at 6 and 12 months. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. Results: We found that residents primarily used the technologies to engage in self-directed digital leisure and to engage with others both in and outside the home, and that this in turn enhanced their comfort, pleasure, and social connectedness. We also identified ongoing barriers to their engagement with the technology, including both personal and structural factors. Discussion and Implications: Our findings suggest that implementation of voice-activated ICTs can bring added value to broader efforts to improve well-being and quality of life in long-term care by enhancing choice, self-determination, and meaningful relationships.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 it