MedPath

Usage and Health Effects of Embodied Conversational Agents Among Older Adults

Not Applicable
Completed
Conditions
Eating Behavior
Technology Use
Loneliness
Interventions
Behavioral: Waiting list + PACO
Behavioral: PACO
Registration Number
NCT04510883
Lead Sponsor
Wageningen University and Research
Brief Summary

Rationale: Embodied Conversational Agents (ECAs), could be a highly effective medium to address health behaviour change among older adults. As compliance to health advice is important for positive health outcomes, successful design of persuasive ECAs can have huge health benefits. However, insights in the mechanisms underlying usage and health behaviour change via ECAs are lacking.

Objective: The objective is to unravel the mechanisms behind the use of an ECA intervention, and understand the mechanism behind the observed behaviour change

Study design: A randomized staggered-entry waitlist-controlled trial will be carried out.

Study population: The study population consist of Dutch-speaking older adults, who live independently, are without partner, are retired, 65+ and possess basic computer skills.

Intervention: The application PACO has been created for (and with) older adults with the goal to motivate them to improve their eating behaviour and decrease their feelings of loneliness.

Main study parameters/endpoints: The main study parameters are use, loneliness, and eating behaviour.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: Subjects are not exposed to any risks, nor have they any costs. They do have to fill in questionnaires and use the application. The duration and data collection moments are needed to gain a fine-grained understanding of the use, relationship development and health change process. For subjects, the main benefit is to gain insight in their health behaviour via the PACO-application. Although this might be experienced as confronting by some. The technology was developed based on sound theories, with input from the target group, so the investigators expect positive experiences and an improvement in participants loneliness and eating behaviour. However, this can only be proven after the study.

Detailed Description

Not available

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
COMPLETED
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
52
Inclusion Criteria
  • Living independently at home
  • Living without a partner
  • No paid profession and at least 65 years of age
  • Dutch speaking
  • Able to use a tablet or computer
  • Internet connection at home
Exclusion Criteria
  • Not willing to provide inform consent

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
SEQUENTIAL
Arm && Interventions
GroupInterventionDescription
Waiting list + PACOWaiting list + PACOParticipants receive the same intervention, but only after a waiting period of four weeks.
PACOPACOParticipants are asked to use the intervention for eight weeks.
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Logdata on use application8 weeks

Amount of time spend on the application during the 8 weeks intervention period

Change in De Jong Gierveld Loneliness ScaleFour weeks before intervention to eight weeks

Score from 1-5, higher score means a better outcome.

Change in eating behaviour based on 24 hours recallFour weeks before intervention to eight weeks
Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
Enjoyment via affect scaleEight weeks after intervention

Pleasure in using the application. Score from 1-5, higher score means a better outcome.

Classic aesthetics ScaleEight weeks after intervention

The design of the application. Score from 1-7, higher score means a better outcome.

Concern for privacy scaleFour and eight weeks after intervention

Concerns about sharing personal data, e.g.name and date of birth. Score from 1-7, higher score means a better outcome.

Active control scaleEight weeks after intervention

Control over the system, as perceived by the user. Score from 1-7, higher score means a better outcome.

System Usability ScaleEight weeks after intervention

Whether PACO is easy to use. Score from 1-5, higher score means a better outcome.

Perceived usefulness scaleEight weeks after intervention

Score from 1-5, higher score means a better outcome.

Rapport scaleFour weeks before intervention to eight weeks

Relationship with the embodied conversational agent. Score from 1-5, higher score means a better outcome.

Brief Older People's Quality of Life ScakeFour weeks before intervention to eight weeks

Score from 1-5, higher score means a better outcome.

Change in Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration ScalesFour weeks before intervention to eight weeks

Score from 1-5, higher score means a better outcome.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Wageningen University & Research

🇳🇱

Wageningen, Gelderland, Netherlands

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved by MedPath