ArticleJMIR aging2026
Perceived Algorithmic Care Intensity and Older Adults' Autonomy in Community Smart Care: Mixed Methods 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As smart older adult care shifts from basic information support to more continuous algorithm-driven care, concerns have grown about whether such systems support older adults' independence or weaken their sense of autonomy. Although previous research has focused mainly on technology acceptance, less is known about how algorithmic care shapes perceived autonomy and through which psychological pathways this occurs. Objective: This study examined whether perceived algorithmic care intensity reduces older adults' perceived autonomy in community smart care settings, whether decisional substitution and perceived surveillance mediate this relationship, and whether digital literacy moderates these effects. Methods: A 3-stage design was adopted. First, a qualitative prestudy with 15 older adults was conducted to refine the focal constructs and measures. Second, a vignette-based experiment with 233 valid participants tested the effects of algorithmic care intensity on decisional substitution, perceived surveillance, and perceived autonomy. Third, a community-based survey with 298 valid participants examined the moderated mediation model in real-world smart older adult care settings. Results: In study 1, compared with the low-intensity condition, the high-intensity condition significantly increased decisional substitution and perceived surveillance, while reducing perceived autonomy. Indirect effects through decisional substitution (effect=-0.072, 95% CI -0.144 to -0.016) and perceived surveillance (effect=-0.084, 95% CI -0.161 to -0.019) were both significant. In study 2, perceived algorithmic care intensity positively predicted decisional substitution (β=.400, P<.001) and perceived surveillance (β=.440, P<.001), and negatively predicted perceived autonomy (β=-.356, P<.001). The indirect effects through decisional substitution (effect=-0.112, 95% CI -0.172 to -0.065) and perceived surveillance (effect=-0.149, 95% CI -0.215 to -0.093) were significant. Digital literacy significantly weakened the effect of algorithmic care intensity on decisional substitution (β=-.174, P=.002), but not on perceived surveillance (β=-.071, P=.18). Conclusions: Algorithmic care may undermine older adults' perceived autonomy both directly and indirectly through decisional substitution and perceived surveillance. Digital literacy appears to be a selective rather than universal buffer. These findings extend smart older adult care research beyond technology acceptance and clarify the tension between empowerment and control in algorithmic care.
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.