Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benefits and challenges of conversational agents in older adults

A scoping review

Nutzen und Herausforderungen konversationeller Agenten für ältere Menschen

Ein Scoping-Review

  • Themenschwerpunkt
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Commercial conversational agents (CAs) bear the promise of low threshold accessibility for individuals with limited digital competencies. This applies not only for healthy aging older adults but also for specific subgroups such as those with life-long intellectual disabilities (ID).

Objective

This scoping review aims to synthesize the current evidence on benefits and challenges of CAs for older adults with and without ID. In doing so, we hope to inform future research as well as practical decision-making in the context of CAs as potential quality of life enhancers for older adults with various competence levels.

Material and methods

A literature search was conducted in form of a scoping review. A total of 841 publications were screened for benefits and challenges of CAs, resulting in an extraction of 18 articles targeting healthy aging older adults (60 years+) and 5 articles targeting older adults with ID (50 years+) for synthesis.

Results

The existing evidence suggests that CAs come with more benefits than challenges, e.g., general ease of use, easier information access, and feelings of companionship. Higher perceived agency due to using a CA seems to be a specific issue for older adults with ID. Challenges concern mostly learning how to use a CA and privacy concerns.

Conclusion

The results indicate that CAs can serve as quality of life enhancers both in healthy aging adults and in older adults with ID; nevertheless, thoughtful preparation is necessary, especially in relation to learning needs, capabilities present and privacy concerns.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Kommerzielle konversationelle Agenten (KAs) versprechen eine niedrigschwellige Zugänglichkeit für Personen mit eingeschränkten digitalen Kompetenzen. Dies gilt für gesund alternde ältere Menschen, aber auch für bestimmte Untergruppen wie Ältere mit lebenslanger geistiger Behinderung (gB).

Ziel

Dieses Scoping-Review zielt auf eine Synthese der aktuellen Forschung zu Nutzen und Herausforderungen von KAs für ältere Menschen mit und ohne gB ab. Damit soll eine Grundlage für Forschung und Praxis im Zusammenhang mit KAs als potenziellen Verstärkungsfaktoren für die Lebensqualität älterer Menschen mit verschiedenen Kompetenzniveaus geschaffen werden.

Material und Methode

Die Literaturrecherche wurde in Form eines Scoping-Reviews durchgeführt. Es wurden insgesamt 841 Publikationen gesichtet und 18 Artikel zu gesund alternden älteren Menschen (≥ 60 Jahre) sowie 5 Artikel zu älteren Menschen mit gB (≥ 50 Jahre) in die Synthese eingeschlossen.

Ergebnisse

Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass KAs mehr Vorteile als Herausforderungen mit sich bringen, z. B. insgesamt eine einfache Nutzung, ein leichterer Zugang zu Informationen sowie das Gefühl von Gesellschaft. Eine höhere Wahrnehmung von Handlungsmacht aufgrund der KA-Nutzung scheint ein spezielles Ergebnis für ältere Menschen mit gB zu sein. Herausforderungen betreffen das Erlernen der Nutzung eines KA und Bedenken hinsichtlich der Privatsphäre.

Schlussfolgerung

KAs können die Lebensqualität sowohl bei gesund alternden Erwachsenen als auch bei älteren Erwachsenen mit gB verbessern. Dennoch ist eine sorgfältige Vorbereitung erforderlich, insbesondere in Bezug auf die Lernbedarfe, vorhandene Fähigkeiten sowie Bedenken zur Privatsphäre.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Intellectual disability is a condition characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior that originates before the age of 22 years.” [19].

References

  1. Abdolrahmani A, Kuber R, Branham SM (2018) “Siri talks at you”: an empirical investigation of voice-activated personal assistant (VAPA) usage by individuals who are blind. In: Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, Galway, pp 249–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold A, Kolody S, Comeau A et al (2022) What does the literature say about the use of personal voice assistants in older adults? A scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2065369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. BAGSO (2022) Web site. https://www.bagso.de/. Accessed 16 June 2022

  4. Barnard Y, Bradley MD, Hodgson F, Lloyd AD (2013) Learning to use new technologies by older adults: perceived difficulties, experimentation behaviour and usability. Comput Human Behav 29(4):1715–1724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Checkmyva (2022) Project. https://checkmyva.de/language/en/project/. Accessed 6 Apr 2022

  6. Couper-Kuhlen E, Selting M (2017) Interactional linguistics: studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Digitaler-Engel (2022) Web site. https://www.digitaler-engel.org/. Accessed 16 June 2022

  8. Ehlers A, Hess M, Frewer-Graumann S et al (2020) Digitale Teilhabe und (digitale) Exklusion im Alter. In: Hagen C, Endter C, Berner F (eds) Expertisen zum Achten Altersbericht der Bundesregierung. Deutsches Zentrum für Altersfragen, Berlin, pp 1–39

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jakob D (2022) Voice controlled devices and older adults—a systematic literature review. In: Gao Q, Zhou J (eds) Human aspects of IT for the aged population. Design, interaction and technology acceptance. HCII 2022. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 13330. Springer, Cham, pp 175–200

    Google Scholar 

  10. Leung R, Tang C, Haddad S, McGrenere J, Graf P, Ingriany V (2012) How older adults learn to use mobile devices. ACM Trans Access Comput 4(3):1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McTear M, Callejas Z, Griol D (2016) The conversational interface: talking to smart devices. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest (2021) SIM-Studie 2021. Senior*innen, Information, Medien

    Google Scholar 

  13. Neves BB, Franz RL, Munteanu C et al (2015) “My hand Doesn’t listen to me!”: adoption and evaluation of a communication technology for the ‘oldest old’. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Seoul, pp 1593–1602

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H et al (2015) Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13:141–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pew Research Center (2021) 7% of Americans don’t use the internet. Who are they? https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/02/7-of-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/. Accessed 16 June 2022

  16. Pradhan A, Mehta K, Findlater L (2018) “Accessibility came by accident”: use of voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants by people with disabilities. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ’18, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ramadan Z, Farah M, El Essrawi L (2020) From Amazon.com to Amazon.love: how Alexa is redefining companionship and interdependence for people with special needs. Psychol Mark 38(4):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ruff C, Horch A, Benthien B, Loh W, Orloswki A (2021) DAMA—A transparent meta-assistant for data self-determination in smart environments. In: Open identity summit. Lecture notes in informatics, pp 119–130

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schalock RL, Luckasson R, Tassé MJ (2021) An overview of intellectual disability: definition, diagnosis, classification, and systems of supports (12th ed.). Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 126:439–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schlomann A, Even C, Hammann T (2022) How older adults learn ICT—guided and self-regulated learning in individuals with and without disabilities. Front Comput Sci 3:803740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schlomann A, Rietz C, Zentel P, Heyl V, Wahl H‑W (2021) KI-basierte Sprachassistenz im Licht der Heterogenität von Altern: Das Beispiel geistige Behinderung. Bild Erziehung 74:296–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schlomann A, Wahl H‑W, Zentel P, Heyl V, Knapp L, Opfermann C, Krämer T, Rietz C (2021) 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. Front Psychol 12:684012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith E, Sumner P, Hedge C, Powel G (2020) Smart-speaker technology and intellectual disabilities: agency and wellbeing. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1864670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Statista (2022) Absatz von intelligenten Lautsprechern weltweit vom 3. Quartal 2016 bis zum 1. Quartal 2022. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/818982/umfrage/absatz-von-intelligenten-lautsprechern-weltweit-pro-quartal/. Accessed 16 Feb 2022

  25. Stigall B, Waycott J, Baker S et al (2019) Older adults’ perception and use of voice user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction. ACM, Fremantle, pp 423–427

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. WHO (2022) UN decade of healthy ageing. https://www.who.int/initiatives/decade-of-healthy-ageing. Accessed 13 June 2022

Download references

Funding

This publication is part of the AI-Aging project (AI-based voice assistants for older adults with and without intellectual disabilities), which is funded by the Baden-Württemberg Stiftung within the funding line Responsible Artificial Intelligence.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Network Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Bergheimer Str. 20, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany

    Christiane Even, Hans-Werner Wahl & Anna Schlomann

  2. Department of Educational Science, Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany

    Torsten Hammann, Christian Rietz & Anna Schlomann

  3. Department of Special Education, Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany

    Vera Heyl

  4. Institute of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Hans-Werner Wahl

  5. Department for Education and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Peter Zentel

Authors
  1. Christiane Even
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torsten Hammann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vera Heyl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Rietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hans-Werner Wahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter Zentel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anna Schlomann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christiane Even.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

C. Even, T. Hammann, V. Heyl, C. Rietz, H.-W. Wahl, P. Zentel and A. Schlomann declare that they have no competing interests.

For this article no studies with human participants or animals were performed by any of the authors. All studies mentioned were in accordance with the ethical standards indicated in each case.

Additional information

figure qr

Scan QR code & read article online

Supplementary Information

391_2022_2085_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Appendices 1–8 containing search string, full list of selection criteria, final publication corpus, overview of study characteristics and overviews of benefits and challenges with publication identifiers in relation to target groups and market readiness and duration of usage

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Even, C., Hammann, T., Heyl, V. et al. Benefits and challenges of conversational agents in older adults. Z Gerontol Geriat 55, 381–387 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-022-02085-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-022-02085-9

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation