ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Stakeholders' Perceived Benefits and Concerns Regarding Artificial Intelligence in the Care of Older Adults.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Ways in Which Stakeholders Make Decisions About AI and Novel Technologies for the Health Care of Older Adults: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Blind spots in artificial intelligence systems: poor identification of self-generated medical images-evidence-based cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare have significant potential to address the unmet needs of older adults. To successfully adopt and implement AI in the care of older adults, it is critical to understand stakeholders' perspectives. We sought to explore the perceived benefits and concerns among stakeholders about AI applications in caring for older adults.
methodsWe conducted individual semi-structured interviews with five groups of stakeholders: older adults and caregivers, clinicians, health system and health insurance plan leaders (payers), investors, and technology developers. Interviews asked about the perceived role of AI in the care of older adults, the perceived benefits and concerns regarding AI, and suggestions for mitigating the concerns. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used thematic content analysis to code the transcripts.
resultsOverall, 49 participants completed interviews: older adults/caregivers (n = 15), clinicians (n = 15), payers (n = 8), investors (n = 5), and technology developers (n = 6). We identified three themes. (1). Stakeholders reported multiple benefits of AI and identified several roles for its use in the care of older adults. (2). Stakeholders expressed concerns about AI, including worsening social isolation, high cost, propagating ageism, goal misalignment, and scams/misuse of AI; views on privacy concerns were mixed. (3). Stakeholders suggested potential solutions, such as setting appropriate guardrails, to mitigate concerns about AI.
conclusionsGiven the complexity and significant unmet needs among older adults, AI's potential benefits and harms are both heightened in this population. Appropriate guardrails are needed to leverage the benefits of AI while mitigating potential harms. Our findings have implications for technology developers to design innovations that align with the stakeholders' perceived roles for AI, for regulatory bodies to incorporate stakeholders' concerns when developing AI regulations, and for health systems and end-users of technology to critically evaluate a product regarding its affordability and impact on social isolation and ageism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.