AI 中文总结
研究痴呆症护理中社会联系减少问题，通过与护理专业人员开展五次研讨会，发现促进社会联系需持续适应居民需求，技术在护理中处边缘地位，基于关怀伦理框架得出GenAI设计和定位的相关影响。
AI 中文摘要
在寄宿护理机构中的痴呆症患者经常经历社会联系的减少。以患者为中心的护理方法强调有意义的社会互动以支持福祉，但工作人员和时间压力日益限制了此类护理的机会。尽管护理压力不断增加，生成式人工智能（GenAI）技术为帮助护理专业人员促进社会联系提供了可能性。然而，将此类技术有意义地整合到寄宿痴呆症护理的复杂社会技术环境中并非易事。为了负责任地为痴呆症护理设计GenAI技术，我们需要研究护理专业人员如何识别和促进社会联系，以及技术在护理环境中如何与这些方法相互交叉。我们与来自三个护理机构的15名护理专业人员进行了五次研讨会以实现这一目标。我们的研究结果表明，促进社会联系涉及持续的解释、协商和适应居民的个人需求。护理专业人员使用技术来支持沟通、互动和共享活动，但在日常护理流程中仍基本处于边缘地位，并且在实践中使用需要积极调解。借鉴关怀伦理框架，我们得出了关于在寄宿痴呆症护理中对GenAI进行负责任设计和定位的伦理和社会技术影响。
英文摘要
People with dementia in residential care often experience reduced social connectedness. Person-centered care approaches foreground meaningful social interactions to support well-being, but staff and time pressures increasingly constrain opportunities for such care. Generative AI (GenAI) technologies offer possibilities for helping care professionals facilitate social connectedness, despite increasing care pressures. Yet, the meaningful integration of such technologies into the complex sociotechnical setting of residential dementia care is not straightforward. To responsibly design GenAI technologies for dementia care, we need to investigate how care professionals recognize and foster social connectedness and how technologies intersect with those approaches in care contexts. We conducted five workshops with 15 care professionals from three care organizations to pursue this objective. Our findings show that fostering social connectedness involves ongoing interpretation, negotiation, and adaptation to residents' individual needs. Technology was used by care professionals to support communication, interaction, and shared activities, yet remained largely peripheral to everyday care routines and required active mediation for use in practice. Drawing on an ethics of care framework, we derive ethical and sociotechnical implications for the responsible design and positioning of GenAI in residential dementia care.
CommentsPreprint version of a manuscript submitted to Frontiers in Digital Health - Human Factors and Digital Health, under review. 27 pages, 1 figure
Journal refFrontiers in Digital Health 8 (2026) 1944047
DOI：10.3389/fdgth.2026.1944047
