与老年人共同设计会话代理:方法、挑战和前进方向的范围审查

IF 4.9 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Sidonie Salomé , Lydie Du Bousquet , Emmanuel Monfort
{"title":"与老年人共同设计会话代理:方法、挑战和前进方向的范围审查","authors":"Sidonie Salomé ,&nbsp;Lydie Du Bousquet ,&nbsp;Emmanuel Monfort","doi":"10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Conversational agents are increasingly recognized as potential solutions to the challenges of aging. However, adapting these technologies to the specific needs of the older adults requires effective design methods that integrate end-users and relevant stakeholders throughout the development process. Co-design methods have gained popularity in this context, but the criteria for evaluating their effectiveness remain limited to basic measures of acceptability and ease of use, with little focus on their actual impact on design outcomes. This study addresses this gap by aiming to: 1) identify the structures of co-design methods tailored for older adults, 2) analyze their strengths and weaknesses, and 3) provide recommendations to optimize future applications.</div><div>To achieve these goals, we conducted a scoping study using the PRISMA methodology. Searches were carried out on PsycInfo, Google Scholar, PubMed, ACM, IEEE, Web of Science and DBLP. Of the 982 articles identified, 27 projects were selected. The analysis revealed great variability in methods and highlighted the lack of consensus on optimal co-design structures for this population. In addition, most studies lacked measures to assess the influence of method diversity on design outcomes and participant experience.</div><div>These findings underscore the need for a scientifically grounded design framework and guidelines to support best practices in co-design for aging-related conversational agents. Establishing such standards would reinforce methodological rigor, enable better comparability across studies, and allow for more accurate measurement of co-design impact on product effectiveness and user satisfaction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72681,"journal":{"name":"Computers in human behavior reports","volume":"17 ","pages":"Article 100606"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Co-designing conversational agents with older people: A scoping review of methods, challenges, and a way forward\",\"authors\":\"Sidonie Salomé ,&nbsp;Lydie Du Bousquet ,&nbsp;Emmanuel Monfort\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100606\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Conversational agents are increasingly recognized as potential solutions to the challenges of aging. However, adapting these technologies to the specific needs of the older adults requires effective design methods that integrate end-users and relevant stakeholders throughout the development process. Co-design methods have gained popularity in this context, but the criteria for evaluating their effectiveness remain limited to basic measures of acceptability and ease of use, with little focus on their actual impact on design outcomes. This study addresses this gap by aiming to: 1) identify the structures of co-design methods tailored for older adults, 2) analyze their strengths and weaknesses, and 3) provide recommendations to optimize future applications.</div><div>To achieve these goals, we conducted a scoping study using the PRISMA methodology. Searches were carried out on PsycInfo, Google Scholar, PubMed, ACM, IEEE, Web of Science and DBLP. Of the 982 articles identified, 27 projects were selected. The analysis revealed great variability in methods and highlighted the lack of consensus on optimal co-design structures for this population. In addition, most studies lacked measures to assess the influence of method diversity on design outcomes and participant experience.</div><div>These findings underscore the need for a scientifically grounded design framework and guidelines to support best practices in co-design for aging-related conversational agents. Establishing such standards would reinforce methodological rigor, enable better comparability across studies, and allow for more accurate measurement of co-design impact on product effectiveness and user satisfaction.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers in human behavior reports\",\"volume\":\"17 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100606\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers in human behavior reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958825000211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in human behavior reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958825000211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对话代理越来越被认为是应对老龄化挑战的潜在解决方案。然而,使这些技术适应老年人的具体需求需要有效的设计方法,在整个开发过程中整合最终用户和相关利益相关者。在这种背景下,协同设计方法得到了普及,但评估其有效性的标准仍然局限于可接受性和易用性的基本度量,很少关注它们对设计结果的实际影响。本研究旨在:1)确定适合老年人的协同设计方法的结构;2)分析其优缺点;3)提供优化未来应用的建议。为了实现这些目标,我们使用PRISMA方法进行了范围界定研究。在PsycInfo, b谷歌Scholar, PubMed, ACM, IEEE, Web of Science和DBLP上进行了搜索。在确定的982篇文章中,选定了27个项目。分析揭示了方法上的巨大差异,并强调了对该人群的最佳协同设计结构缺乏共识。此外,大多数研究缺乏评估方法多样性对设计结果和参与者体验影响的措施。这些发现强调了需要一个有科学依据的设计框架和指导方针,以支持与老龄化相关的对话代理共同设计的最佳实践。建立这样的标准将加强方法的严谨性,使研究之间具有更好的可比性,并允许更准确地测量共同设计对产品有效性和用户满意度的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Co-designing conversational agents with older people: A scoping review of methods, challenges, and a way forward
Conversational agents are increasingly recognized as potential solutions to the challenges of aging. However, adapting these technologies to the specific needs of the older adults requires effective design methods that integrate end-users and relevant stakeholders throughout the development process. Co-design methods have gained popularity in this context, but the criteria for evaluating their effectiveness remain limited to basic measures of acceptability and ease of use, with little focus on their actual impact on design outcomes. This study addresses this gap by aiming to: 1) identify the structures of co-design methods tailored for older adults, 2) analyze their strengths and weaknesses, and 3) provide recommendations to optimize future applications.
To achieve these goals, we conducted a scoping study using the PRISMA methodology. Searches were carried out on PsycInfo, Google Scholar, PubMed, ACM, IEEE, Web of Science and DBLP. Of the 982 articles identified, 27 projects were selected. The analysis revealed great variability in methods and highlighted the lack of consensus on optimal co-design structures for this population. In addition, most studies lacked measures to assess the influence of method diversity on design outcomes and participant experience.
These findings underscore the need for a scientifically grounded design framework and guidelines to support best practices in co-design for aging-related conversational agents. Establishing such standards would reinforce methodological rigor, enable better comparability across studies, and allow for more accurate measurement of co-design impact on product effectiveness and user satisfaction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信