Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug 30:26:e54800.
doi: 10.2196/54800.

Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of Smart Speakers in Behavioral Intervention Research With Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study

Affiliations

Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of Smart Speakers in Behavioral Intervention Research With Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study

Kelly Quinn et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Smart speakers, such as Amazon's Echo and Google's Nest Home, combine natural language processing with a conversational interface to carry out everyday tasks, like playing music and finding information. Easy to use, they are embraced by older adults, including those with limited physical function, vision, or computer literacy. While smart speakers are increasingly used for research purposes (eg, implementing interventions and automatically recording selected research data), information on the advantages and disadvantages of using these devices for studies related to health promotion programs is limited.

Objective: This study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of using smart speakers to deliver a physical activity (PA) program designed to help older adults enhance their physical well-being.

Methods: Community-dwelling older adults (n=18) were asked to use a custom smart speaker app to participate in an evidence-based, low-impact PA program for 10 weeks. Collected data, including measures of technology acceptance, interviews, field notes, and device logs, were analyzed using a concurrent mixed analysis approach. Technology acceptance measures were evaluated using time series ANOVAs to examine acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and intention to adopt smart speaker technology. Device logs provided evidence of interaction with and adoption of the device and the intervention. Interviews and field notes were thematically coded to triangulate the quantitative measures and further expand on factors relating to intervention fidelity.

Results: Smart speakers were found to be acceptable for administering a PA program, as participants reported that the devices were highly usable (mean 5.02, SE 0.38) and had strong intentions to continue their use (mean 5.90, SE 0.39). Factors such as the voice-user interface and engagement with the device on everyday tasks were identified as meaningful to acceptability. The feasibility of the devices for research activity, however, was mixed. Despite the participants rating the smart speakers as easy to use (mean 5.55, SE 1.16), functional and technical factors, such as Wi-Fi connectivity and appropriate command phrasing, required the provision of additional support resources to participants and potentially impaired intervention fidelity.

Conclusions: Smart speakers present an acceptable and appropriate behavioral intervention technology for PA programs directed at older adults but entail additional requirements for resource planning, technical support, and troubleshooting to ensure their feasibility for the research context and for fidelity of the intervention.

Keywords: behavioral health; behavioral intervention; conversational agent; intervention; intervention research; older adults; physical activities; physical activity; smart device; smart devices; smart speakers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration of smart speaker operation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study design. PA: physical activity; T0: baseline; T1: 6 weeks and end of phase 1; T2: 10 weeks and end of phase 2.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Berkowsky RW, Czaja SJ. Behavioral Intervention Research: Designing, Evaluating, and Implementing. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2015. Dec, The use of technology in behavioral intervention research: advantages and challenges.
    1. Mohr DC, Burns MN, Schueller SM, Clarke G, Klinkman M. Behavioral intervention technologies: evidence review and recommendations for future research in mental health. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(4):332–8. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.03.008. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0163-8343(13)00069-8 S0163-8343(13)00069-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Portet F, Vacher M, Golanski C, Roux C, Meillon B. Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: acceptability and objection aspects. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2011 Oct 2;17:127–44. doi: 10.1007/s00779-011-0470-5. - DOI
    1. Sunshine J. Smart speakers: the next frontier in mHealth. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022 Feb 21;10(2):e28686. doi: 10.2196/28686. https://mhealth.jmir.org/2022/2/e28686/ v10i2e28686 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sezgin E, Militello LK, Huang Y, Lin S. A scoping review of patient-facing, behavioral health interventions with voice assistant technology targeting self-management and healthy lifestyle behaviors. Transl Behav Med. 2020 Aug 07;10(3):606–28. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz141.5885015 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources