Family caregivers’ acceptance of Artificial Intelligence-enabled technologies for providing care to older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies hold promise for assisting in the care of an aging population. Few studies have focused on exploring family caregivers’ (FCGs) behavioural intention of using such innovation, and even fewer have employed a technology acceptance framework. OBJECTIVE: This study examined FCGs of older adults’ behavioural intention of using AI-enabled technologies for caregiving. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a theory-based cross-sectional quantitative survey. Eligible FCGs for this study were: (1) aged 45–64; (2) residing in Quebec, Canada; (3) providing care for at least one older adult (65+); (4) having access to a computer or smartphone with internet connectivity; and, (5) having proficiency in reading and comprehending English or French. We adapted and expanded the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework to measure their behavioural intention of using AI-enabled technologies for caregiving. We used descriptive statistics and a random forest model to assess the most important predictive factors across nine variables and their direction of association with behavioural intention. The Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) guidelines was used for reporting the study’s results. RESULTS: Among the polling firm’s 100,000 panelists, 2740 eligible individuals were randomly chosen to receive an email invitation to the study. Of 465 panelists who opened the survey (i.e., unique visitors),199 were eligible and completed the online survey. The random forest model explained between 56% and 86% of the behavioural intention variance of using AI, with social influence demonstrating the highest predictive relevance as indicated by a 35% increase in mean-squared error once removed from the model. Among the nine variables considered, six demonstrated a positive association with behavioural intention. These variables included social influence, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, perceived trust, confidence in healthcare professionals’ advice for the use of AI-enabled technologies, and facilitating connditions. The variables perceived cost and technology anxiety indicated a negative association with behavioural intention. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our extended UTAUT model identified factors associated with FCGs' intention to use AI. While all nine variables contributed, attitudes toward AI within caregivers’ social circles was the strongest predictor. Stakeholders from industry, government, and healthcare can enhance the adoption of AI-enabled technologies in older adult care by leveraging facilitators and addressing barriers experienced by caregivers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".