MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162656250 · doi:10.2196/90053

Smart Speaker-Based Applications to Support Social Connectedness in Older Adult Residents in Affordable Housing: A User-Centered Design Study (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W7162656250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jane Chung, Natalie Mansion, Tracey Gendron, Rachel E. Wood, George Demiris

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial supportSocial connectednessQualitative researchExploratory researchResearch design

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Older adults in affordable housing face heightened risks of social isolation and loneliness due to limited social networks, transportation barriers, chronic conditions, and inadequate technology access. Smart speakers offer potential for enhancing social connectedness in this underserved population, yet technology interventions are rarely designed with meaningful input from older adults themselves. User-centered design (UCD) approaches can address this gap by engaging end users throughout the development process to ensure technology solutions align with their needs and living contexts. Objective: This study aimed to engage older adults in affordable housing in an iterative UCD process to develop prototype scenarios for smart speaker-based applications that promote social connectedness while addressing safety, community-building, and wellness needs. Methods: We conducted a 3-stage UCD study with 29 older adults (mean age 70, SD 6.8 years; 23/29, 79% African American; 20/29, 69% high school education or less) living alone in affordable housing between April 2021 and April 2022. Stage 1 included 5 focus groups (n=25) combining needs assessment discussions with rapid brainstorming activities. Stage 2 involved research team synthesis of focus group transcripts and brainstorming data to create a Design Strategies Map, development of initial prototype scenarios, 5 evaluation focus groups (n=18) to gather feedback, and iterative scenario refinement. Stage 3 comprised 4 validation focus groups (n=17) to assess refined scenarios and identify implementation recommendations. Participants included both smart speaker users (n=13) and nonusers (n=16). Data were analyzed using thematic analysis for needs assessment, content analysis for brainstorming ideas and feedback, and matrix analysis for systematic comparison across scenarios. Results: Participants generated 153 ideas for smart speaker use, with Health and Safety and Daily Assistance being the most frequent categories. Analysis revealed that social connection needs were inseparable from safety concerns related to living alone. Through iterative co-design, we developed 7 prototype scenarios across 4 functional categories: Checking-In (peer and management safety verification with privacy controls), Social Companion (conversational artificial intelligence-based companionship and emotional support), Community Involvement (virtual bulletin boards and activity coordination), and Wellness Check (system-initiated monitoring of activity and behavioral patterns as health indicators with user-controlled interventions). Participants emphasized requirements for personalization, opt-in/opt-out controls, "Do-Not-Disturb" functionality, and safeguards preventing replacement of human connection. Conclusions: Older adults in affordable housing engaged in technology design and provided valuable insights that challenge assumptions about their needs and preferences. The prototype scenarios addressed the dual imperatives of social connection and safety while living alone, offering a foundation for developing technology-based applications tailored to underserved populations. Implementation should prioritize user control, privacy protection, and human-in-the-loop design ensuring that technology facilitates rather than replaces human connection and community programming, alongside consideration of user characteristics to build trust and ensure effective, sustained use of the intended technology platform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207