Designing a Recommender System to Recruit Older Adults for Research Studies Md Atik Enam1 , Swapnil Srivastava1 and Bart P. Knijnenburg1 1 School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, USA Abstract Recruiting older adults for research studies is a challenging endeavor. We conducted an interview to understand older adults’ preferences and expectations, with the goal of building a recommender system to support the selection of suitable research studies. Our findings suggest that sharing the results of the studies they participated in would motivate older adults to participate in more studies and give them a feeling of self-accomplishment and belonging. We list 15 design implications based on our user research and present a prototype system based on these design implications. Keywords Older adults, Design implications, Prototype design, Interviews, Recommender systems 1. Introduction older adults from the research studies they par- ticipate in? Older adults constitute a large part of the world population— a proportion projected to rise from 9% in 2019 to 16% in Using the insights from our interviews, we designed 2050 [40]. As this growing population requires special a prototype of a recommender system that helps older care [28], researchers study whether the lifestyles of these adults evaluate, select, and provide feedback on available people can be improved by introducing technologies such research studies, thereby answering one more research as autonomous vehicles and smart homes [20, 6]. The question: goal of these technologies is to make older adults more • RQ3: What should designers keep in mind while independent [11] reduce their self-perception of burden- designing intelligent user interfaces for older adults? ing society [17] and help them contribute meaningfully to their community [8]. Most of these studies require Using our findings to these RQs as a guideline, we older adults as participants—either to understand the discuss how HCI researchers can best design studies to specific needs and wants of this population, to evaluate attract older adult participants, how to create an adaptive systems that are built for them, or to study issues re- decision support system that helps them evaluate those lated to their use of existing systems that are generally attributes, and, more in general, how to design intelligent designed for a younger population (cf. [24, 21, 19]). We user interfaces that are suitable for older adults. therefore set out to study what researchers should keep in mind when recruiting older adult participants. Jacelon usefully outlined specific considerations regarding the 2. Related Work recruitment process, interview length, instrument de- sign, etc. [25]. However, what a research study looks 2.1. Designing for Older Adults like from the perspective of an older adult has not been The main goal of our work is to design a recommender thoroughly studied. To bridge this gap, we conducted in- system that helps older adults in evaluating and select- depth interviews with older adult participants to answer ing research studies to participate in. Designing an ac- the following research questions: cessible recommender system for older adults is not a • RQ1: What characteristics of a study attract older straightforward task. A number of general system de- adults, and how do they decide to get involved? sign suggestions are provided in review papers by Morris • RQ2: What are the gains and expectations of [39] and by Fisk et al. [18]. Similarly, Mitzner et al., in a survey-based study, presented a few factors that may influence technology adoption in older adults. These pre- Third Workshop on Social and Cultural Integration With Personalized Interfaces (SOCIALIZE) 2023 dictors can help us understand how to design a system Envelope-Open menam@clemson.edu (M. A. Enam); srivas7@clemson.edu for older adults [35]. (S. Srivastava); bartk@clemson.edu (B. P. Knijnenburg) Orcid 0000-0002-0877-7063 (M. A. Enam); 0000-0003-1341-0669 (B. P. Knijnenburg) © 2023 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). CEUR Workshop Proceedings http://ceur-ws.org ISSN 1613-0073 CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org) 1 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 Table 1 Description of the Participants Participant ID Gender Age Computer Literacy Occupation P1 Male 92 Sometimes Chemical Engineer P2 Female 73 Sometimes Arts Business P3 Male 92 No longer Use Engineer P4 Female 84 Very Little Use Volunteering Works P5 Male 93 No longer Use Business P6 Female 89 Regular Use Volunteering Works P7 Male 93 No longer use Navy Officer, Professor 2.2. Older Adults’ Participation in when designing our recommender system. Research Studies However, to develop a recommender system for partici- 3. Methods pating in research studies, it is important to know what factors influence older adults’ preferences in participating In October 2022 we conducted an IRB-approved study, in such studies. Beyond the work by Jacelon [25] out- interviewing 7 participants (see Table 1) to understand lined in the introduction, there are several other works older adults’ needs and expectations around participating related to how studies should recruit older adults to min- in research studies. We recruited participants through imize barriers related to culture, health, or institutions the Director of Community Outreach (DCO) of a local [27, 46, 36]. Most of these works related to clinical re- assisted-living community. The DCO contacted the res- search rather than technology-related studies [38, 3, 43]. idents to schedule several interviews. After obtaining We aim to focus on the latter, because technology can participants’ consent to participate and to audio-record play a crucial role in helping older adults live their lives the conversation, we conducted semi-structured inter- more comfortably [34, 10, 22]. views using a number of predefined questions but asking Older adults are likely to participate in designing and in-depth follow-up questions whenever we desired more developing smart technology systems if they find that it details or further explanation. The interviews lasted will improve their lifestyles [26]. Roger and Fisk provided around 45-60 minutes. We analyzed the audio transcripts an overview of how psychology can help to understand of the recordings using open coding, and compared codes older adults’ preferences and their importance in the to generate a list of design implications. These user re- participatory design process [44]. search findings (see Section 4) then helped us design a prototype recommender system (see Section 5). 2.3. Computer Literacy among Older Adults 4. Findings from User Research In designing a recommender system for older adults, it is Upon discussing our open codes, we divided our findings important to keep in mind that many of them did not have into two broad categories: characteristics of research computers in their early childhood, which impacts how studies that attract older adults, and personal gains and they learn to use a new system [2]. This potential lack expectations older adults have regarding research stud- of digital literacy [42]—often coupled with anxiety and ies. The design implications related to our findings are a lack of interest in learning computers [14, 1]—makes displayed in Table 2. The quotes below are edited for it difficult for designers to develop a system that older clarity and brevity. adults can learn and use independently [4]. Note that while many studies on digital literacy fo- cus barriers that hinder older adults in learning a new 4.1. Characteristics of Research Studies technology [32, 7, 37] Martínez-Alcalá showed that older that Attract Older Adults adults can gain digital literacy if they are sufficiently mo- 4.1.1. Personal Interest and Challenge tivated [33]. Note also that older adults vary substantially in their level of digital literacy, which makes it even more [Basis for DI11 and DI14] Most participants expressed difficult to generalize designs for a particular age group that if the topic of a research study is interesting, they [32]. We particularly take the importance of motivation will most likely participate. Of particular interest were and older adults’ diversity of experiences into account research studies related to health and lifestyles improve- ments: 2 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 Table 2 Design Implications from User Research ID Design Implications DI1 The system should consider the computer literacy level of the users DI2 The system should consider the potential disabilities of older adults and provide assistance options DI3 The system should recommend items based on the participant’s past professions and skills DI4 The system should not recommend things with which the participant had bad experiences DI5 The system should ask whether the participant likes group activities or individual studies DI6 The system should recommend items based on the participant’s past volunteering experiences DI7 The system should leverage word-of-mouth as a means to promote studies among older adults DI8 The system should recommend studies that make older adults feel like they are contributing to society, especially related to health issues DI9 The system should inform older adults about the results of the studies they participated in DI10 The system should use a feedback system to help refine the recommendations DI11 The system should provide recommendations that align with the participant’s interests DI12 The system should allow older adults to share their experiences with friends and family members DI13 The system must consider the community building aspects of volunteering for older adults DI14 The system should recommend interesting studies that challenge them within the limits of their abilities DI15 The system should not recommend remote/virtual studies to participants who do not like such studies “Once, they had a study where they put “We have a meeting once a week... It red buttons on the walls, and they tried is called Greet... It’s held out in the en- to understand if we found that useful for trance area of our my apartment. That emergencies or calling someone. We do group then gets together, and they hear not carry phones all the time. In a space each other... And so you get to see what like this [small patio] where most of the other people, what they’re having prob- staff can not see us, a button is helpful to lems with.”—P3 call someone quickly in case of an emer- gency.” —P7 Beyond these arranged events, they do not get many opportunities to discuss different topics with other people Older adults also expressed a desire for challenging in the facility. Research studies provide residents with activities, such as pairing up with other people to create a good opportunities to talk about things they usually do prototype, or doing some other activity that is not beyond not feel comfortable about or do not know with whom their limitations: to talk about. In that case, they want the groups to be as mixed as possible because they think such groups will “I have participated with some of the things consist of more diversified opinions: they got over there, which were very inter- esting. One was for five sessions, where I “I get to hear all the opinions... sometimes paired up with two students, and the ob- they don’t agree with me but that’s more ject was for the students to design some- enjoyable to me. Uh, because I like to hear thing those folks could really use in their other people’s opinions on this study as life.”—P3 to where they think we’re doing it right or wrong. Sometimes they have really good “When talk to some of the students here points.”—P3 for some of their projects, I am impressed with them because they come up with 4.1.3. Study Location some pretty interesting challenges.”—P3 [DI2] Participants like to go outside for studies, but most 4.1.2. Group Discussion have health issues that prohibit them from driving. They expressed that if studies provide them with transporta- [DI5, DI13] All participants liked studies where they are tion and accommodations, they are happy to go to a asked to talk in a group rather than in a one-to-one dis- remote location: cussion, because they want to socialize with the people around them: “It depends on the circumstances, how you get there. Yeah, if you could go and 3 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 stay, and perhaps you know... Would they been the test dummy. In this instance it give you housing and food, or would you has a tinge of overcoming fear. Okay this have to arrange it yourself?”—P6 happened to me so I am going to prove I am over this by teaching someone else to 4.1.4. Computer Literacy do it... I generally end up volunteering for the same things: I want to use the skills I [DI1, DI15] Our participants had moderate knowledge have acquired over a lifetime.”—P2 of how to use computers and mobile phones. Most of them use computers to communicate with others via 4.1.6. Social Influence email. Some also use social media applications to keep in contact with friends and family, and banking applications [DI7, DI12] While not all participants initially enjoyed to manage finances: participating in studies, they often get motivated by friends living in the same facility who like to participate. Some “Say uh the email situation. I do all my noted that if they do not participate, others might think banking on the computer and all that. And badly of them. One participant said that he participated then, whenever I have a question about in studies because it made others happy: something, I go to Google. So yeah, I do (use computers)”—P3 “I do not go out of my way to volunteer, especially for research studies. I do it be- None of the participants ever used a computer or mo- cause people around me are doing some- bile phone to find a research study to participate in, but all thing like meals on wheels and it makes said they were willing to try out an application that can them happy.”—P2 suggest studies based on their preferences. Furthermore, most of them had used a computer as an instrument of a 4.1.7. Invitation from Known Faces in the Facility study, or to participate in studies virtually: [DI7] In the facility where we conducted our interviews, “Sure, we’ve [used computers], but we the DCO usually contacts residents to determine whether were doing it as a six of us together on they want to participate in the research studies: their computers...”—P4 “She comes over and tells us that we’ve 4.1.5. Relation to Past Experiences, Professions, got a group that’s coming, and would we and Skills like to participate?”—P4 [DI3, DI4, DI6] Past experiences with studies play an “The young lady came in earlier this week essential role in deciding whether to participate in future and told me students want to come over studies. If a study did not go well for them (e.g., the to interview you. Would you participate? study was in an inconvenient location, or some study And she knew I would say sure.—P2 procedure made them feel sick), they are likely to avoid similar studies. One other participant recalled taking a Usually, residents instantly accept the DCO’s invita- chemistry class where students were experimenting with tion without knowing what the study is about. This can dogs: cause issues because participants may find out later that the study requires them to do something they dislike. “They used to do experiments, so they While the DCO usually tells them who is conducting the could get involved. These mad students, study, this information is not sufficient. Instead, it would they were using dogs, and that’s when I be a good practice to let participants know what the study decided I didn’t want to experiment on is about, how long it takes, and whether it has any further dogs.”—P6 requirements. Participants like to use their past experiences and skills. One participant once had a near-death experience and 4.1.8. Preferences for virtual meeting platforms overcame his fear by teaching others how to do CPR. He [DI15] Most participants had health issues restricting used the same attitude when deciding to participate in them from participating in studies. When they started studies: participate in studies virtually, they began to like on- line meeting platforms such as Zoom. Since then, they “I’ve had an up close and personal connec- started using them for different purposes, such as ”Sun- tion to the whole process. Either I can do day Church School.” this or be the test dummy, and I’ve already 4 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 “We zoom church and zoom ”Sunday School” 4.2.3. Research follow-up now; zoom helps us to communicate with- [DI9, DI10] Participants mentioned they would be happy out being there physically. Okay, so we to be contacted again if researchers had remaining ques- do. You know, they still do that through tions; this would make them feel their experiences are an [zoom].”—P1 asset to the researchers. Furthermore, they would love to know more about the outcomes of the studies they 4.1.9. Privacy protection participate in. This helps the residents see that they have Most participants did not have any privacy issues re- made a small but valuable contribution to the research garding their participation in research studies. They do community and help them achieve something: not want their names to be on the research articles, but beyond that, they cannot think of any other ways their “I would like to see what some of those privacy could be violated. While linkage attacks using results mean for you. I never did hear a the information provided in the research articles could follow-up with results, and what I wanted be possible [15], most studies seem to ask only general to know how it all came out.”—P4 questions about the issues they face as an older adult, which most older adults seemed completely fine with: One participant asked researchers to bring in the pub- lished journal article so they could read the study’s out- “You don’t have to use our names. Any- comes: way, this is just a general question about senior citizens.”—P5 “We would be happy to have that, since we were a part of this. Would be nice to 4.2. Gains, Expectations of Older Adults put in the library here: Things from the participants of [facility name].”—P2 from the Research Studies 4.2.1. Self-Accomplishment 4.2.4. Decision Autonomy [DI8, DI14] Older adults know there are not many op- One of the participants mentioned that he wanted more portunities where they can contribute through physical autonomy to choose what study to participate in. He work, so they seek out opportunities where they can help mentioned that he would love to use a system that would others through their experience: recommend opportunities to volunteer for a study based “I feel inclined for example to help this on his experiences, skills, and preferences: kid... he wanted advice on something for “Let me make up my own mind. What I his job. I like helping individuals who like is when I have a diversity of options, need help for specific things.”—P2 like when I am on eBay. I can go and see Similarly, our participants mentioned that they want the details of each option too.”—P2 to participate in studies that help others and contribute to society. This gives them a feeling of self-accomplishment: 5. Design of the Prototype “We look at projects that are probably good to have here, that will make the place bet- The design implications of our research are summarized ter”—P3 in Table 2. Our user research findings show that older adults love to contribute to society by participating in 4.2.2. Discussion with Family and Friends research studies. Importantly, there are various individ- ual factors that can be used to match participants with [DI12] Participants said that on the weekends they spend studies: some like to participate in group studies, oth- a significant amount of time with family. They discuss ers prefer challenging activities, and still others prefer what their week was like and share things that they find studies related to health issues. Older adults also face interesting. They mentioned that they often share their a variety of limitations that prevent them from partic- experience participating in research studies with their ipating in certain studies. Ideally, older adults can use family members over dinner. To them, it is an accom- these factors to decide for themselves which studies they plishment they can share with their family: want to participate in. In the current process, researchers “I like to see they look healthy and that we usually do not contact the participants personally, and are all together, but we’ll tell them tonight participants have no opportunity to select studies that about our adventure with you folks today, match their desires and limitations. Our primary focus is so we discuss that.”—P4 5 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 Table 3 To avoid cold start problem, ROAFSS asks 6 questions to the participants, based on the design implications (DI1-DI7) Id Question Q1 Do you have any disabilities? Please mark the disabilities that apply to you or leave them blank if they don’t. Q2 Please indicate if you need any accommodation or transportation for a remote study. Q3 Do you have an experience from a past study that was uncomfortable for you? Q4 Please list your skills to help us give you better recommendations. Q5 Would you rather participate in a group study or an individual study? Q6 How many hours of volunteering have you done? Table 4 Feedback System to refine recommendation for the future based on the design implications. Id Feedback question Related DIs F1 Were you satisfied with the recommended volunteering opportunity? DI4, DI6 F2 Does this volunteering experience help you develop skills of your interest? DI1, DI6, DI11, DI14 F3 Was this study topic interesting to you? DI4, DI6, DI11 F4 Are you satisfied with your learning outcomes from your participation in this study? DI1 F5 Would you like to be updated on the progress of this research? DI9 F6 Was the time commitment to this study comfortable for you? DI6, DI10 F7 Would you like to participate in research studies of similar topics? DI6, DI10, DI11 F8 Does the participation in this study increase a sense of community for you? DI13 F9 Does participation in a study like this help you achieve your goals? DI8 F10 Would you like to share this study with your peers? DI7, DI12, DI13 thus on automating recruiting participants through a rec- of a study if results are available (DI9), contact the re- ommender system that can help the older adults evaluate searcher, or give feedback on the study (DI10). The feed- and select research studies. We note that older adults back mechanism asks 10 questions (Table 4) about the sometimes need help to express their desires and limi- study, avoids studies similar to the ones they disliked, tations. We solved this issue by introducing a feedback and promotes studies similar to the ones they liked. option, which helps our system refine future recommen- ROAFSS collects and stores personal information about dations. study participants, which may cause privacy concerns. Furthermore, our user research findings show that Note, though, that participants in our studies did not older adults love to learn more about the results of the seem overly concerned about this. Moreover, ROAFSS studies they participated in. Currently, this generally can potentially serve as a portal for research study partic- does not happen. Our system helps “close the loop” from ipation, so that individual studies themselves do not have participating in research studies to learning about their to collect any personally identifiable information. This findings and contributions by making the research out- would increase the overall privacy of the study partici- comes available to users. pants, since they only have to disclose their identifiable Our Recommender System for Older Adults to Find information once, and this information is never stored Suitable Studies (ROAFSS) consists of four main pages. alongside their research participation data. The recommendation page (Fig. 1a) lists studies that the user may participate in, tailored to the answers they gave to six questions about their abilities and prefer- 6. Discussion ences (Table 3) and the feedback they gave to past stud- Older adults’ perspectives matter and they love ies. Each study is listed with a title, contribution (DI8), to contribute to the society While existing works individual vs. group participation (DI5), remote vs. lo- [39, 18, 25, 27, 36, 44] are essential to help reduce the cal requirements (DI15), and the names of friends who challenges older adults face in research studies, they do have already signed up to participate in the study (DI8). not explicitly consider older adults’ motivations and de- The study-specific page (Fig. 1b) shows additional details sires to participate. Our study found that older adults are of the study, contact information, and the ”Participate” eager to participate in research studies that are a) chal- and ”Share” buttons (DI12). On the profile page (Fig. 1c) lenging and interesting, b) social, and c) relevant to their ROAFSS shows the past studies the user has participated past professions and skills. Participation is heavily in- in. From there, the user can visit the result page (Fig. 1d) 6 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 1: The (a) study recommendation page, (b) specific study page, (c) profile page, and (d) result page of a study. fluenced by peers’ participation in the same studies, and verse backgrounds will have different experiences, so older adults love to share their participation experiences future work should expand the participant pool to see if with friends and family. Finally, older adults would love our finidings generalize. Moreover, future research may to hear about the results of the studies they participate implement our proposed system and conduct a user ex- in—this gives them a feeling of self-accomplishment and periment [29] to see if the system indeed increases older belonging. adult participants’ satisfaction, how it supports their self- actualization [30], and how the feedback systems help Designers must carefully consider what older adults refine the recommendations. look for Practitioners and researchers have compiled This article does not consider the age-related acces- useful guidelines for developing systems for older adults sibility issues older adults face [13, 45, 23]. Our focus [41, 12, 9, 5, 16, 31], but little work exists that takes an ex- is more on the general opinions of older adults about plicit user-centric approach to the design of recommender participating in research studies. Thus, future works systems for older adults. Our results include several de- may examine how older adults with accessibility issues sign implications based on in-depth interviews with older perceive participation in research studies. adult participants that practitioners and researchers can use as a guide to develop recommender systems for this user community. Furthermore, we encourage designers 7. Conclusion and researchers to use our methodology to find system- We conducted in-depth interviews with older adults to specific design implications. understand their motivations, restrictions and expecta- tions around participating in research studies. We found Limitations and Future Work We ran our study with that older adults participate in research studies because a small number of older adults from a single residential like to contribute to society with their work and opinions. community. Different communities and people from di- We also built a prototype that will recommend the users 7 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 of the system research studies that they can choose from. [7] Ke Chen and Alan Hoi Shou Chan. 2014. Gerontech- Such a recommender system can provide the older adult nology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: community useful support in selecting research studies a senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Er- that fit their preferences and limitations. gonomics 57, 5 (2014), 635–652. [8] Lona H Choi. 2003. Factors affecting volunteerism among older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology Acknowledgments 22, 2 (2003), 179–196. [9] Victor Philip Cornet, Tammy Toscos, Davide Bol- We would like to thank Ruthie Millar at the Clemson chini, Romisa Rohani Ghahari, Ryan Ahmed, Carly Downs retirement community for her help coordinating Daley, Michael J Mirro, and Richard J Holden. 2020. our interviews, and all of the interviewed participants Untold stories in user-centered design of mobile for their willingness to participate in our study. This health: Practical challenges and strategies learned research was supported in part by the NSF award IIS from the design and evaluation of an app for older 2045153. adults with heart failure. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 8, 7 (2020), e17703. References [10] Sara J Czaja, Walter R Boot, Neil Charness, Wendy A Rogers, and Joseph Sharit. 2018. Improving social [1] Lisa A. Hollis-Sawyer, Harvey L. Sterns. 1999. A support for older adults through technology: Find- novel goal-oriented approach for training older ings from the PRISM randomized controlled trial. adult computer novices: Beyond the effects of The Gerontologist 58, 3 (2018), 467–477. individual-difference factors. Educational Geron- [11] Sara J Czaja, José H Guerrier, Sankaran N Nair, and tology 25, 7 (1999), 661–684. Thomas K Landauer. 1993. Computer communi- [2] Robert H Anderson, Tora K Bikson, Sally Ann Law, cation as an aid to independence for older adults. and Bridger M Mitchell. 2001. Universal access to Behaviour & Information Technology 12, 4 (1993), email: feasibility and societal implications. In The 197–207. digital divide: facing a crisis or creating a myth? [12] Ana Correia De Barros, Roxanne Leitão, and Jorge 243–262. Ribeiro. 2014. Design and evaluation of a mobile [3] Patricia A Arean and Dolores Gallagher-Thompson. user interface for older adults: navigation, interac- 1996. Issues and recommendations for the recruit- tion and visual design recommendations. Procedia ment and retention of older ethnic minority adults Computer Science 27 (2014), 369–378. into clinical research. Journal of consulting and [13] José-Manuel Díaz-Bossini and Lourdes Moreno. clinical psychology 64, 5 (1996), 875. 2014. Accessibility to mobile interfaces for older [4] Sajay Arthanat, Kerryellen G Vroman, Cather- people. Procedia Computer Science 27 (2014), 57–66. ine Lysack, and Joseph Grizzetti. 2019. Multi- [14] R Darin Ellis and Jason C Allaire. 1999. Model- stakeholder perspectives on information commu- ing computer interest in older adults: The role of nication technology training for older adults: im- age, education, computer knowledge, and computer plications for teaching and learning. Disability and anxiety. Human Factors 41, 3 (1999), 345–355. Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 14, 5 (2019), [15] Md Atik Enam, Sadman Sakib, and Md Saidur Rah- 453–461. man. 2019. An algorithm for l-diversity clustering [5] Laura-Mihaela Bogza, Cassandra Patry-Lebeau, of a point-set. In 2019 International Conference on Elina Farmanova, Holly O Witteman, Jacobi Elliott, Electrical, Computer and Communication Engineer- Paul Stolee, Carol Hudon, Anik MC Giguere, et al. ing (ECCE). IEEE, 1–6. 2020. User-centered design and evaluation of a [16] Miranda A Farage, Kenneth W Miller, Funmi Ajayi, web-based decision aid for older adults living with and Deborah Hutchins. 2012. Design principles to mild cognitive impairment and their health care accommodate older adults. Global journal of health providers: mixed methods study. Journal of medi- science 4, 2 (2012), 2. cal Internet research 22, 8 (2020), e17406. [17] Miranda A Farage, Kenneth W Miller, Enzo Be- [6] Julian Brinkley, Earl W Huff, and Md Atik Enam. rardesca, and Howard I Maibach. 2008. Psychoso- 2022. Transforming Transportation in the Pursuit cial and societal burden of incontinence in the aged of Barrier Free Mobility: The State-of-the-Art in population: a review. Archives of gynecology and Autonomous Vehicle Interaction Technologies for obstetrics 277, 4 (2008), 285–290. People with Disabilities. In Conference: The 2022 [18] Dan Fisk, Neil Charness, Sara J Czaja, Wendy A ICT Accessibility Testing Symposium: Driving Acces- Rogers, and Joseph Sharit. 2004. Designing for older sibility Together. ACM, 11–26. adults. CRC press. [19] Norina Gasteiger, Ho Seok Ahn, Christopher Lee, 8 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 Jongyoon Lim, Bruce A Macdonald, Geon Ha Kim, ments. In Recommender systems handbook. Springer, and Elizabeth Broadbent. 2022. Participatory De- Boston, MA, 309–352. sign, Development, and Testing of Assistive Health [30] Bart P. Knijnenburg, Saadhika Sivakumar, and Dari- Robots with Older Adults: An International Four- cia Wilkinson. 2016. Recommender Systems for year Project. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Self-Actualization. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Interaction (2022). Conference on Recommender Systems (Boston, Mas- [20] Abir Ghorayeb, Rob Comber, and Rachael sachusetts, USA) (RecSys ’16). Association for Com- Gooberman-Hill. 2021. Older adults’ perspectives puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 11–14. of smart home technology: Are we developing the https://doi.org/10.1145/2959100.2959189 technology that older people want? International [31] Chuan Ma, Olivia Guerra-Santin, and Masi Moham- journal of human-computer studies 147 (2021), madi. 2021. Smart home modification design strate- 102571. gies for ageing in place: a systematic review. Jour- [21] Aaron Gluck, Kwajo Boateng, Earl W Huff Jr, and nal of Housing and the Built Environment (2021), Julian Brinkley. 2020. Putting Older Adults in the 1–27. Driver Seat: Using User Enactment to Explore the [32] Ittay Mannheim, Ella Schwartz, Wanyu Xi, San- Design of a Shared Autonomous Vehicle. In 12th In- dra C Buttigieg, Mary McDonnell-Naughton, Eve- ternational Conference on Automotive User Interfaces line JM Wouters, and Yvonne Van Zaalen. 2019. In- and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 291–300. clusion of older adults in the research and design [22] Maurita T Harris, Kenneth A Blocker, and Wendy A of digital technology. International Journal of Envi- Rogers. 2022. Older adults and smart technology: ronmental Research and Public Health 16, 19 (2019), facilitators and barriers to use. Frontiers in Computer 3718. Science (2022), 41. [33] Claudia I Martínez-Alcalá, Alejandra Rosales- [23] Earl W. Huff, Natalie DellaMaria, Brianna Posadas, Lagarde, María de los Ángeles Alonso-Lavernia, and Julian Brinkley. 2019. Am I Too Old to Drive? José Á Ramírez-Salvador, Brenda Jiménez- Opinions of Older Adults on Self-Driving Vehicles. Rodríguez, Rosario M Cepeda-Rebollar, In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGAC- José Sócrates López-Noguerola, María Leti- CESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility cia Bautista-Díaz, and Raúl Azael Agis-Juárez. 2018. (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (ASSETS ’19). Association Digital inclusion in older adults: A comparison for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, between face-to-face and blended digital literacy 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353801 workshops. Frontiers in ICT 5 (2018), 21. [24] Earl W Huff Jr, Natalie DellaMaria, Brianna Posadas, [34] Rachel McCloud, Carly Perez, Mesfin Awoke and Julian Brinkley. 2019. Am I too old to drive? Bekalu, K Viswanath, et al. 2022. Using Smart opinions of older adults on self-driving vehicles. In Speaker Technology for Health and Well-being in The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference an Older Adult Population: Pre-Post Feasibility on Computers and Accessibility. 500–509. Study. JMIR aging 5, 2 (2022), e33498. [25] Cynthia S Jacelon. 2007. Older adults’ participation [35] Tracy L Mitzner, Wendy A Rogers, Arthur D Fisk, in research. Nurse Researcher 14, 4 (2007). Walter R Boot, Neil Charness, Sara J Czaja, and [26] Cynthia S Jacelon and Allen Hanson. 2013. Older Joseph Sharit. 2016. Predicting older adults’ percep- adults’ participation in the development of smart tions about a computer system designed for seniors. environments: An integrated review of the litera- Universal Access in the Information Society 15, 2 ture. Geriatric Nursing 34, 2 (2013), 116–121. (2016), 271–280. [27] Betül Kanık, Özden Melis Uluğ, Nevin Solak, and [36] Lona Mody, Douglas K Miller, Joanne M McGloin, Maria Chayinska. 2022. “Let the strongest survive”: Marcie Freeman, Edward R Marcantonio, Jay Maga- Ageism and social Darwinism as barriers to support- ziner, and Stephanie Studenski. 2008. Recruitment ing policies to benefit older individuals. Journal of and Retention of Older Adults in Aging Research: Social Issues (2022). (See editorial comments by Dr. Stephanie Studenski, [28] Jürgen Kiessling, Margaret Kathleen Pichora-Fuller, pp 2351–2352). Journal of the American Geriatrics Stuart Gatehouse, D Stephens, Stig Arlinger, T Society 56, 12 (2008), 2340–2348. Chisolm, AC Davis, NP Erber, L Hickson, A Holmes, [37] Ashley N Moore, Ann M Rothpletz, and Jill E Pre- et al. 2003. Candidature for and delivery of au- minger. 2015. The effect of chronological age on diological services: special needs of older people. the acceptance of Internet-based hearing health International journal of audiology 42, sup2 (2003), care. American Journal of Audiology 24, 3 (2015), 92–101. 280–283. [29] B.P. Knijnenburg and M.C. Willemsen. 2015. Eval- [38] Gina Moreno-John, Anthony Gachie, Candace M uating recommender systems with user experi- Fleming, Anna Napoles-Springer, Elizabeth Mutran, 9 Md Atik Enam et al. Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops 2023, March 2023, Sidney, Australia 1–10 Spero M Manson, and Eliseo J Pérez-Stable. 2004. Ethnic minority older adults participating in clinical research. Journal of Aging and Health 16, 5_suppl (2004), 93S–123S. [39] J Morgan Morris. 1994. User interface design for older adults. Interacting with computers 6, 4 (1994), 373–393. [40] United Nations. 2020. World Population Age- ing 2020 Highlights - the United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/ www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/ documents/2020/Sep/un_pop_2020_pf_ageing_10_ key_messages.pdf [41] Ferda Ofli, Gregorij Kurillo, Štěpán Obdržálek, Ruzena Bajcsy, Holly Brugge Jimison, and Misha Pavel. 2015. Design and evaluation of an interactive exercise coaching system for older adults: lessons learned. IEEE journal of biomedical and health infor- matics 20, 1 (2015), 201–212. [42] Sarah Soyeon Oh, Kyoung-A Kim, Minsu Kim, Jaeuk Oh, Sang Hui Chu, and JiYeon Choi. 2021. Measure- ment of digital literacy among older adults: system- atic review. Journal of medical Internet research 23, 2 (2021), e26145. [43] Darina V Petrovsky, Lan N Ðoàn, Maria Loizos, Rachel O’Conor, Micah Prochaska, Mazie Tsang, Rachel Hopman-Droste, Tara C Klinedinst, Aarti Mathur, Karen Bandeen-Roche, et al. 2022. Key recommendations from the 2021 “inclusion of older adults in clinical research” workshop. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 6, 1 (2022). [44] Wendy A Rogers and Arthur D Fisk. 2010. Toward a psychological science of advanced technology de- sign for older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 65, 6 (2010), 645–653. [45] Sergio Sayago and Josep Blat. 2009. About the rele- vance of accessibility barriers in the everyday inter- actions of older people with the web. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary Confer- ence on Web Accessibililty (W4A). 104–113. [46] Mina S Sedrak, Supriya G Mohile, Virginia Sun, Can-Lan Sun, Bihong T Chen, Daneng Li, Andrew R Wong, Kevin George, Simran Padam, Jennifer Liu, et al. 2020. Barriers to clinical trial enrollment of older adults with cancer: A qualitative study of the perceptions of community and academic oncol- ogists. Journal of geriatric oncology 11, 2 (2020), 327–334. 10