ArticleJMIR aging2026
Exploring Expectations, Ethical Dimensions, and Values for Voice-Enabled AI Assistants That Support Older Adults and Informal Family Caregivers: Participatory Speculative Design Study.
Article in JMIR aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Continuous advancements in voice artificial intelligence technologies aim to assist older adults and caregivers, potentially improving quality of life and reducing caregiving burdens. Although research has explored the potential of voice-enabled artificial intelligence (VAI) assistants, such as Alexa (Amazon.com, Inc) and Google Home, to support older adults' health in informal care settings, there remains a significant gap in understanding the ethical dimensions and values that may influence their future adoption by caregivers and care recipients. Objective: This research aims to explore older adult and informal family caregivers' perspectives of VAI assistants for supporting informal care, including the ethical dimensions and values that influence their decisions about future adoption for these purposes. Methods: This research uses participatory speculative design to explore older adults' and informal family caregivers' perspectives of how VAI might support informal care in the future, and the ethical concerns they have about adopting VAI technologies. We conducted 8 workshop sessions with older adults and caregivers (n=9) over four months. Each phase focused on one of three goals: (1) to understand existing experiences, (2) to envision future VAI technologies, and (3) to reflect on ethical values that shape acceptance. In workshops, we aimed to gain insights into their experiences and challenges in managing informal care tasks and how future implementation of VAI might support the caregiving process to address their needs and concerns while emphasizing the ethical dimensions they value. Results: The findings suggest older adults and informal family caregivers see potential opportunities for VAIs to support informal aging care by automating daily health tasks to improve efficiency, enhancing mental health and well-being, and offering companionship. However, participants felt that VAI alone might not be sufficient to address the complex needs of informal care. Additionally, they raised several ethical concerns related to transparency, privacy, inclusiveness, trust, affordability, and autonomy, which they felt needed to be addressed to encourage adoption of VAI technologies for informal care in the future. Conclusions: Based on the findings, we offer insights and design implications for VAI systems that balance efficiency with ethical values to support diverse caregiving needs and potentially encourage future adoption in the informal care space.
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.