ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Differences in Interactions with a Conversational Agent.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- User Engagement with A Multimodal Conversational Agent for Self-Care and Chronic Disease Management: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Detailed Analysis of Responses from Older Adults through Natural Speech: Comparison of Questions by AI Agents and Humans.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Living Lab-Based Service Interaction Design for a Companion Robot for Seniors in South Korea.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- The Development and Use of Chatbots in Public Health: Scoping Review.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Responsible nudging for social good: new healthcare skills for AI-driven digital personal assistants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- Potential and Pitfalls of Digital Voice Assistants in Older Adults With and Without Intellectual Disabilities: Relevance of Participatory Design Elements and Ecologically Valid Field Studies.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent technological advances introduced conversational agents into homes. Many researchers have investigated how people utilize and perceive them. However, only a small number of studies have focused on how older adults interact with these agents. This study presents a 14-day user study of 19 participants who experienced a conversational agent in a real-life environment. We grouped them into two groups by age and compared their experiences. From a log study and semi-structured interviews, we identified several differences between the two groups. Compared to younger adults, older adults used the agent more. They used it primarily for listening to music and reported satisfaction with it. Younger adults mainly used utility skills like weather report checks and setting of alarms, which streamlined their daily lives. Moreover, older adults tended to view the agent as a companion, while younger adults saw it as a tool. Based on these empirical findings, we suggest that conversational agents should be designed with consideration of the different usage patterns and perceptions across age groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.