pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21495 · v1 · pith:5K624MO2new · submitted 2026-04-16 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.HC

Requirements Perception Gap across Stakeholders: A Comparative Survey of Aged Care Digital Health Software

Yuqing Xiao , John Grundy , Anuradha Madugalla , Elizabeth Manias This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 01:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.HC
keywords requirements engineeringaged caredigital healthstakeholder perspectivesnon-functional requirementssurvey studysoftware development
0
0 comments X

The pith

Software developers overestimate user satisfaction with ease of use and responsiveness in aged care digital health tools while pushing advanced features that users do not prioritize.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes a significant requirements gap by comparing how older adults, caregivers, and software developers view current and desired features in aged care digital health software. Developers focus on advanced functional capabilities and believe users are more satisfied with core non-functional aspects like ease of use than the users themselves report. Users instead emphasize simplicity, reliability, and basic functionality. A sympathetic reader would care because closing this gap could lead to software that older adults and caregivers actually adopt and benefit from in daily care settings.

Core claim

Our analysis reveals a significant 'Requirements Gap'. Software developers tend to prioritise advanced features and functional requirements, significantly overestimating user satisfaction with core NFRs such as ease of use and responsiveness. Conversely, developers were more critical of existing functional features compared to older adults and caregivers, who prioritised simplicity and reliability over feature density.

What carries the argument

A mixed-methods survey of 249 participants (103 older adults, 41 caregivers, 105 developers) that compares quantitative satisfaction ratings with qualitative responses on functional and non-functional requirements.

If this is right

  • Future co-design processes can target the specific points where developer and user priorities diverge on simplicity versus feature density.
  • Near-term product decisions can shift emphasis toward improving responsiveness and ease of use rather than adding advanced functions.
  • Privacy-by-design recommendations can be shaped by the shared concerns across all three groups on core reliability needs.
  • Alignment on basic functional requirements can be strengthened while reducing developer focus on features that users rate as lower priority.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Addressing the gap may increase actual usage rates of digital tools in aged care settings beyond what current satisfaction surveys predict.
  • Similar perception gaps could exist in other user groups with accessibility needs, such as patients managing chronic conditions.
  • Developers might test revised requirement gathering methods that directly incorporate user ratings of non-functional attributes early in design.

Load-bearing premise

The survey participants and questionnaire items drawn from a prior review accurately represent the views of the larger stakeholder populations without major selection or framing bias.

What would settle it

A follow-up study with a larger and more diverse sample that finds no statistically significant differences in how developers versus users rate satisfaction with ease of use and responsiveness would undermine the gap claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21495 by Anuradha Madugalla, Elizabeth Manias, John Grundy, Yuqing Xiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The workflow of recruit, include, and exclude participants for surveys any time. The survey instrument was organised around three requirement constructs aligned with requirements engineering categories: • Functional requirements (FR): Core features that define specific behaviour, functions, and user tasks. FRs specify actions, features, and behaviours. • Non-functional requirements (NFR): Requirements that… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Functional requirements rated as satisfactory: Current satisfaction levels across stakeholder groups, showing proportion distributions. of frustration. Older adults reported that slow or inconsistent system feedback discouraged continued use. OA22 explained, “When I press a button, it should react right away — if it’s slow, I stop trusting it.” FC01 confirmed this sentiment, “. . . delayed responses often … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Non-Functional requirements rated as satisfactory: Current satisfaction levels across stakeholder groups, showing proportion distributions. 4.2.1. Unsatisfied Functional Requirements Medication and Safety Support Medication and safety support emerged as a widely recognised but inconsistently implemented requirement across stakeholder groups. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Functional requirements rated as unsatisfactory: Current satisfaction levels across stakeholder groups, showing proportion distributions. to spend a lot to adapt their homes.” Dev27 commented, “We need to make users feel guided through their exercises, not just watching a silent video.” Overall, these findings highlight a gap between caregivers’ optimism and users lived experience, suggesting that future r… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Non-Functional requirements rated as unsatisfactory: Current satisfaction levels across stakeholder groups, showing proportion distributions. connects with other devices. It could bring all the data together (in one place) so I can see my overall health." Brain Training Brain training tools include memory games and cognitive exercises. Older adults showed mixed reactions, with 40% neutral, 25% “somewhat he… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data Collection Methods Trustworthy Reported by Older Adults: Who Older Adults want to share data with vs How Comfort Older Adults are to share 4.2.2. Unsatisfied Non-Functional Requirements Socio-economic Support Socio-economic support functions were rated lowest overall, reflecting a critical blind spot in design ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Frequency of Participants-Reported Functional Requirements in Open-ended Questions: Current Feedback vs Future Priority Note. These were general, non-leading questions asking participants to identify what they considered most important. The frequency counts reflect participants’ primary areas of focus. RQ2 Answer Summary Collectively, these findings suggest that developers have largely been “going for the … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Current Satisfaction of Non-Functional Requirements among Stakeholder Groups: Proportion Distribution Stacked Bar Chart and Likert Scale Means (95% CI) Note. These were general, non-leading questions asking participants to identify what they considered most important. The frequency counts reflect participants’ primary areas of focus. “Vital Signs and Health Monitoring” emerged as the most frequently mentio… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We sought to explore and compare the perspectives of three key stakeholder groups: older adults, caregivers (formal health providers and informal caregivers), and digital health software developers on key functional and non-functional requirements. We conducted a survey, designed based on the findings from an existing systematic review, to gather and analyse data related to the three stakeholder groups' (dis)satisfaction with current aged care digital health software and their views on key future aged care software requirements. A mixed-methods survey approach integrated quantitative questionnaire data and qualitative open-ended responses from a total sample of 249, comprised of older adults (103), formal and informal caregivers (41), and software developers (105). Data analysis utilised a mixed methods approach, employing inferential statistics to compare group satisfaction levels and thematic analysis for qualitative open-ended responses. Our analysis reveals a significant "Requirements Gap". Software developers tend to prioritise advanced features and functional requirements, significantly overestimating user satisfaction with core NFRs such as ease of use and responsiveness. Conversely, developers were more critical of existing functional features compared to older adults and caregivers, who prioritised simplicity and reliability over feature density. By combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, we identified where stakeholder priorities align and where they diverge across functional and non-functional requirements in both the current designs they used and the future designs they desire. Our findings present a stakeholder gap analysis that can guide future co-design processes, near-term product decisions, and privacy-by-design recommendations in aged care digital health.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from a mixed-methods survey of 249 stakeholders in aged care digital health software (103 older adults, 41 caregivers, 105 developers). Drawing on questionnaire items derived from a prior systematic review, it uses inferential statistics to compare satisfaction levels and thematic analysis of open-ended responses to identify a 'Requirements Gap': developers are said to overestimate user satisfaction with core non-functional requirements (ease of use, responsiveness) while prioritising advanced functional features, whereas older adults and caregivers emphasise simplicity and reliability.

Significance. If the central claim holds after methodological clarifications, the work offers a concrete stakeholder-gap analysis that can inform co-design processes and privacy-by-design decisions in aged-care software. The mixed-methods design combining group comparisons with qualitative themes is appropriate for the research question, and grounding the instrument in a prior systematic review is a strength that enhances traceability of the functional and non-functional requirement categories examined.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Survey Design and Data Collection)] §3 (Survey Design and Data Collection): The manuscript provides no information on recruitment channels, response rate, demographic weighting, or benchmarking of the 249-participant sample against population characteristics of older adults, caregivers, and developers in aged care. This detail is load-bearing for the Requirements Gap claim, because the reported divergences in NFR satisfaction and feature prioritisation could reflect convenience-sampling artifacts rather than genuine stakeholder differences.
  2. [§4 (Results and Statistical Analysis)] §4 (Results and Statistical Analysis): The inferential comparisons of satisfaction levels across the three groups do not report the specific statistical tests, handling of unequal group sizes (41 caregivers vs. 105 developers), correction for multiple comparisons, or effect sizes. Without these, the assertion that developers 'significantly overestimat[e] user satisfaction with core NFRs' cannot be fully evaluated and remains vulnerable to over-interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Adding one sentence summarising the magnitude of the key satisfaction differences or the main themes from the qualitative analysis would strengthen the abstract's support for the 'significant Requirements Gap' conclusion.
  2. [§3] The questionnaire items and response scales should be reproduced in an appendix or table so readers can assess framing effects on the reported NFR priorities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments identify key areas where additional methodological transparency will strengthen the manuscript. We respond to each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (Survey Design and Data Collection): The manuscript provides no information on recruitment channels, response rate, demographic weighting, or benchmarking of the 249-participant sample against population characteristics of older adults, caregivers, and developers in aged care. This detail is load-bearing for the Requirements Gap claim, because the reported divergences in NFR satisfaction and feature prioritisation could reflect convenience-sampling artifacts rather than genuine stakeholder differences.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of recruitment and sampling details limits the ability to fully evaluate potential biases in the Requirements Gap findings. In the revised manuscript we will expand §3 with a new subsection that specifies the recruitment channels (online aged-care forums and associations for older adults and caregivers; developer communities and professional networks for software developers), the overall response rate, any post-stratification weighting applied, and a comparison of sample demographics against available population benchmarks for the Australian aged-care sector. We will also add an explicit limitations paragraph acknowledging the convenience-sampling approach and its implications for generalisability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4 (Results and Statistical Analysis): The inferential comparisons of satisfaction levels across the three groups do not report the specific statistical tests, handling of unequal group sizes (41 caregivers vs. 105 developers), correction for multiple comparisons, or effect sizes. Without these, the assertion that developers 'significantly overestimat[e] user satisfaction with core NFRs' cannot be fully evaluated and remains vulnerable to over-interpretation.

    Authors: We accept that the current reporting of inferential statistics is insufficient for rigorous evaluation. In the revised §4 we will explicitly state the tests used (Kruskal-Wallis H tests followed by Dunn’s post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction, chosen because of non-normality and unequal group sizes), report effect sizes (epsilon-squared), and describe how the imbalance between the caregiver (n=41) and developer (n=105) groups was handled. These additions will allow readers to assess the magnitude and robustness of the reported differences in NFR satisfaction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical survey rests on collected data

full rationale

The paper reports results from a mixed-methods survey of 249 participants (103 older adults, 41 caregivers, 105 developers) using questionnaires derived from a prior systematic review, followed by inferential statistics and thematic analysis. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-referential definitions appear; the Requirements Gap claim is produced directly by comparing stakeholder responses rather than reducing to any input by construction. Self-citation or prior-review usage is not load-bearing for any derivation, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained empirical study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on self-reported survey data and the assumption that questionnaire items derived from an earlier review adequately represent stakeholder views.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-reported survey responses accurately reflect true stakeholder perceptions and priorities without significant social desirability or recall bias.
    The gap analysis and satisfaction comparisons depend directly on the validity of questionnaire answers from the three groups.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5804 in / 1142 out tokens · 37331 ms · 2026-05-22T01:14:18.709103+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Begashaw, Current status of barriers to mHealth access among patients with stroke and steps toward the digital health era: Systematic review 12 e54511.doi:10.2196/54511

    A.Niyomyart,S.Ruksakulpiwat,C.Benjasirisan,L.Phianhasin,K.Nigussie,S.Thorngthip,G.Shamita,J.Thampakkul, L. Begashaw, Current status of barriers to mHealth access among patients with stroke and steps toward the digital health era: Systematic review 12 e54511.doi:10.2196/54511

    work page doi:10.2196/54511

  2. [2]

    S.Ramaswamy,N.Gilles,A.C.Gruessner,D.Burton,M.A.Fraser,S.Weingast,S.Kunnakkat,A.Afable,D.Kaufman, J.Singer,C.Balucani,S.R.Levine,User-centeredmobileapplicationsforstrokesurvivors(MAPPS):Amixed-methods study of patient preferences 104 (10) 1573–1579.doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2023.05.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2023.05.009 2023

  3. [3]

    N. M. Huang, L. Z. Wong, S. S. Ho, B. Timothy, Understanding challenges and emotions of informal caregivers of general older adults and people with alzheimer disease and related dementia: Comparative study 27 e54847.doi: 10.2196/54847

    work page doi:10.2196/54847

  4. [4]

    R. Yang, S. Gao, Y. Jiang, Digital divide as a determinant of health in the u.s. older adults: prevalence, trends, and risk factors 24 (1) 1027.doi:10.1186/s12877-024-05612-y. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05612-y

    work page doi:10.1186/s12877-024-05612-y

  5. [5]

    H. Shen, Y. Han, W. Shi, J. Yu, X. Shan, H. Wang, J. Wang, Perspectives and experiences of family caregivers using supportivemobileappsindementiacare:Meta-synthesisofqualitativeresearch13(1)e65983,company:JMIRmHealth and uHealth Distributor: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Institution: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Label: JMIR mHealth and uHealth.doi:10.2196/65983. U...

    work page doi:10.2196/65983 2025

  6. [6]

    G. D. Giebel, P. Raszke, H. Nowak, L. Palmowski, M. Adamzik, P. Heinz, M. Tokic, N. Timmesfeld, F. Brunkhorst, J. Wasem, N. Blase, Problems and barriers related to the use of AI-based clinical decision support systems: Interview study 27 e63377.doi:10.2196/63377

    work page doi:10.2196/63377

  7. [7]

    Omboni, L

    S. Omboni, L. Campolo, E. Panzeri, Telehealth in chronic disease management and the role of the internet-of-medical- things: the tholomeus®experience 17 (7) 659–670.doi:10.1080/17434440.2020.1782734

    work page doi:10.1080/17434440.2020.1782734 2020

  8. [8]

    Shamsujjoha, J

    M. Shamsujjoha, J. Grundy, H. Khalajzadeh, Q. Lu, L. Li, Developer and end-user perspectives on addressing human aspects in mobile eHealth apps 166 107353.doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107353. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584923002082

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107353 2023

  9. [9]

    alert fatigue

    I. Gani, I. Litchfield, D. Shukla, G. Delanerolle, N. Cockburn, A. Pathmanathan, Understanding “alert fatigue” in primary care: Qualitative systematic review of general practitioners attitudes and experiences of clinical alerts, prompts, and reminders 27 (1) e62763, company: Journal of Medical Internet Research Distributor: Journal of Medical Internet Res...

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Jacob, N

    C. Jacob, N. Brasier, E. Laurenzi, S. Heuss, S.-G. Mougiakakou, A. Cöltekin, M. K. Peter, AI for IMPACTS framework forevaluatingthelong-termreal-worldimpactsofAI-poweredcliniciantools:Systematicreviewandnarrativesynthesis 27 e67485.doi:10.2196/67485

    work page doi:10.2196/67485

  11. [11]

    URLhttps://journal.gerontechnology.org/currentIssueContent.aspx?aid=3368

    M.Trinh,M.T.Harris,R.F.L.Azevedo,W.A.Rogers,Understandingolderadults’perceptionsofmHealthapps22(1) 1–7.doi:10.4017/gt.2023.22.1.841.10. URLhttps://journal.gerontechnology.org/currentIssueContent.aspx?aid=3368

    work page doi:10.4017/gt.2023.22.1.841.10 2023

  12. [12]

    C. Chen, S. Ding, J. Wang, Digital health for aging populations 29 (7) 1623–1630.doi:10.1038/ s41591-023-02391-8

    work page

  13. [13]

    Q.Dong,T.Liu,R.Liu,H.Yang,C.Liu,Effectivenessofdigitalhealthliteracyinterventionsinolderadults:Single-arm meta-analysis 25 e48166.doi:10.2196/48166

    work page doi:10.2196/48166

  14. [14]

    URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584925000576

    Y.Xiao,J.Grundy,A.Madugalla,Requirementsengineeringforolderadultdigitalhealthsoftware:Asystematicliterature review 183 107718.doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107718. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584925000576

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107718 2025

  15. [15]

    Chadwick, L

    H. Chadwick, L. Laverty, R. Finnigan, R. Elias, K. Farrington, F. J. Caskey, S. N. Van Der Veer, Engagement with digital health technologies among older people living in socially deprived areas: Qualitative study of influencing factors 8 e60483–e60483.doi:10.2196/60483. URLhttps://formative.jmir.org/2024/1/e60483 Xiao et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier...

    work page doi:10.2196/60483 2024

  16. [16]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18036-5

    A.Bertolazzi,V.Quaglia,R.Bongelli,Barriersandfacilitatorstohealthtechnologyadoptionbyolderadultswithchronic diseases: an integrative systematic review 24 (1) 506.doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18036-5. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18036-5

    work page doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18036-5

  17. [17]

    Zainal, X

    H. Zainal, X. Xiaohui, J. Thumboo, S. J. Seah, L. L. Leng, F. Kok Yong, Exploring caregiver challenges, digital health technologies, and healthcare support: a qualitative study 7.doi:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1587162. URLhttps://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2025. 1587162/full

    work page doi:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1587162 2025

  18. [18]

    J.A.Andrews,L.J.Brown,M.S.Hawley,A.J.Astell,Olderadults’perspectivesonusingdigitaltechnologytomaintain good mental health: Interactive group study 21 (2) e11694.doi:10.2196/11694

    work page doi:10.2196/11694

  19. [19]

    URLhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9257427/

    B.K.White,A.Martin,J.White,Gamificationandolderadults:opportunitiesforgamificationtosupporthealthpromotion initiatives for older adults in the context of COVID-19 35 100528.doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100528. URLhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9257427/

    work page doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2022.100528 2022

  20. [20]

    Singh, S

    B. Singh, S. Chastin, A. Miatke, R. Curtis, D. Dumuid, J. Brinsley, T. Ferguson, K. Szeto, C. Simpson, E. Eglitis, I. Willems, C. Maher, Real-world accuracy of wearable activity trackers for detecting medical conditions: Systematic review and meta-analysis 12 (1) e56972, company: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Distributor: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Institution: ...

    work page doi:10.2196/56972 2024

  21. [21]

    J.Hepburn,L.Williams,L.McCann,Barrierstoandfacilitatorsofdigitalhealthtechnologyadoptionamongolderadults with chronic diseases: Updated systematic review

    work page

  22. [22]

    Ardito, P

    C. Ardito, P. Buono, M. Costabile, R. Lanzilotti, A. Piccinno, End users as co-designers of their own tools and products, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 23 (2) (2012) 78 – 90, place: UK. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2011.11.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2011.11.005 2012

  23. [23]

    Mahmoudi Asl, S

    A. Mahmoudi Asl, S. Kouters, Á. Castro-González, H. Van der Roest, M. Franco Martin, R.-M. Dröes, Potential facilitatorsofandbarrierstoimplementingtheminirobotincommunity-basedmeetingcentersforpeoplewithdementia andtheircarersinthenetherlandsandspain:Explorativequalitativestudy,JournalofMedicalInternetResearch25(2023) e44125.doi:10.2196/44125. URLhttp://d...

    work page doi:10.2196/44125 2023

  24. [24]

    Rathnayake, C

    S. Rathnayake, C. Jones, P. Calleja, W. Moyle, Family carers’ perspectives of managing activities of daily living and use ofmHealthapplicationsindementiacare:Aqualitativestudy,JournalofClinicalNursing28(23-24)(2019)4460–4470, _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jocn.15030.doi:10.1111/jocn.15030. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...

    work page doi:10.1111/jocn.15030.doi:10.1111/jocn.15030 2019

  25. [25]

    Y. K. Chan, Y. M. Tang, L. Teng, A comparative analysis of digital health usage intentions towards the adoption of virtual reality in telerehabilitation, International Journal of Medical Informatics 174 (2023) 105042.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105042. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505623000606

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105042 2023

  26. [26]

    M. F. Abdullah, S. Siraj, R. E. Hodgett, An Overview of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Application in ManagingWater-RelatedDisasterEvents:Analyzing20YearsofLiteratureforFloodandDroughtEvents,Water13(10) (2021) 1358.doi:10.3390/w13101358. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/10/1358

    work page doi:10.3390/w13101358 2021

  27. [27]

    Stamm, S

    O. Stamm, S. Vorwerg, U. Müller-Werdan, Exergames in augmented reality for older adults with hypertension: A qualitativestudyexploringuserrequirements11593LNCS232–244,ISBN:978-303022014-3Type:Conferencepaper. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22015-0_18. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85069846712&doi=10.1007% 2f978-3-030-22015-0_18&partnerID=4...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22015-0_18

  28. [28]

    Pacheco, I

    C. Pacheco, I. Garcia, A systematic literature review of stakeholder identification methods in requirements elicitation, Journal of Systems and Software 85 (9) (2012) 2171–2181

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Müller, W

    I. Müller, W. Hussain, J. Grundy, So who is impacted anyway: a preliminary study of indirect stakeholder identification in practice, in: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, ACM, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, 2022, pp. 36–40.doi:10.1145/3528579.3529168. URLhttps://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3528...

    work page doi:10.1145/3528579.3529168 2022

  30. [30]

    End Users

    Stakeholders: Going Beyond Just “End Users”. URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9662415

    work page arXiv

  31. [31]

    doi:10.1016/j.pdisas.2024.100320

    S.Elkady,S.Mehryar,J.Hernantes,L.Labaka,Prioritizingstakeholderinteractionsindisastermanagement:ATOPSIS- based decision support tool for enhancing community resilience, Progress in Disaster Science 22 (2024) 100320. doi:10.1016/j.pdisas.2024.100320. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061724000103

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pdisas.2024.100320 2024

  32. [32]

    Schön, J

    E.-M. Schön, J. Thomaschewski, M. J. Escalona, Agile requirements engineering: A systematic literature review, Computer standards & interfaces 49 (2017) 79–91

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Xiao et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 29 of 36 Requirements Perception Gap across Stakeholders of Aged Care Digital Health URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-21088-2

    J.An,X.Zhu,K.Wan,Z.Xiang,Z.Shi,J.An,W.Huang,Olderadults’self-perception,technologyanxiety,andintention to use digital public services 24 (1) 3533.doi:10.1186/s12889-024-21088-2. Xiao et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 29 of 36 Requirements Perception Gap across Stakeholders of Aged Care Digital Health URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-21088-2

    work page doi:10.1186/s12889-024-21088-2

  34. [34]

    Kuusik, E

    A. Kuusik, E. Reilent, K. Sarna, M. Parve, Home telecare and rehabilitation system with aspect oriented functional integration 57 33 – 6, place: Germany. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2012-4194

    work page doi:10.1515/bmt-2012-4194 2012

  35. [35]

    Jussli, H

    A. Jussli, H. Gewald, Senior DT - a design thinking method to improve requirements engineering for elderly citizens, in: 2021 IEEE 29th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW), pp. 240–247.doi: 10.1109/REW53955.2021.00045

    work page doi:10.1109/rew53955.2021.00045 2021

  36. [36]

    Scandurra, M

    I. Scandurra, M. Hägglund, S. Koch, From user needs to system specifications: Multi-disciplinary thematic seminars as a collaborative design method for development of health information systems 41 (4) 557 – 569, type: Article. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.01.012. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-46649097023&doi=10.1016%2fj.jbi. 2008.01.012...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.01.012 2008

  37. [37]

    Tran-Nguyen, C

    K. Tran-Nguyen, C. Berger, R. Bennett, M. Wall, S. N. Morin, F. Rajabiyazdi, Mobile app prototype in older adults for postfracture acute pain management: User-centered design approach 5 (4), type: Article.doi:10.2196/37772. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85144769504&doi=10.2196%2f37772& partnerID=40&md5=02482136c94e989003debe5ae5d000ab

    work page doi:10.2196/37772

  38. [38]

    T. Le, B. Reeder, J. Chung, H. Thompson, G. Demiris, Design of smart home sensor visualizations for older adults 22. doi:10.3233/THC-140439

    work page doi:10.3233/thc-140439

  39. [39]

    A. C. Nielsen, G. S. Rotger, A. M. Kanstrup, L. A. Laplante, User-innovated eHealth solutions for service delivery to older persons with hearing impairment 27 (3) 403–416.doi:10.1044/2018_AJA-IMIA3-18-0009. URLhttps://pubs.asha.org/doi/abs/10.1044/2018_AJA-IMIA3-18-0009

    work page doi:10.1044/2018_aja-imia3-18-0009

  40. [40]

    Ariaeinejad, N

    M. Ariaeinejad, N. Archer, M. Stacey, T. Rapanos, F. Elias, F. Naji, User-centered requirements analysis and design solutions for chronic disease self-management 9752 3 – 15, ISBN: 978-331939398-8 Type: Conference paper. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39399-5_1. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84978884133&doi=10.1007% 2f978-3-319-39399-5_1&p...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39399-5_1

  41. [41]

    ICT-based Solutions in Real Life Situations, Springer International Publishing, 2015, p

    A.C.Rodriguez,C.Roda,P.González,E.Navarro,Contextualizingtasksintele-rehabilitationsystemsforolderpeople, in: Ambient Assisted Living. ICT-based Solutions in Real Life Situations, Springer International Publishing, 2015, p. 29–41.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26410-3_4. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26410-3_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26410-3_4 2015

  42. [42]

    W. Wu, T. Graziano, A. Salner, M.-H. Chen, M. P. Judge, X. Cong, W. Xu, Acceptability, effectiveness, and roles of mHealth applications in supporting cancer pain self-management: Integrative review 12 (1) e53652, company: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Distributor: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Institution: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Label: JMIR mHealth and uHealth.do...

    work page doi:10.2196/53652 2024

  43. [43]

    R.Lopes,K.VanIsacker,L.Carrico,RedefiningAssumptions:AccessibilityandItsStakeholders,in:ComputersHelping PeoplewithSpecialNeeds.Proceedings12thInternationalConference,ICCHP2010,Vol.vol.1,Berlin,Germany,2010, pp. 561 – 8. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14097-6_90

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14097-6_90 2010

  44. [44]

    K.Madampe,J.Grundy,R.Hoda,H.Obie,Thestruggleisreal!theagonyofrecruitingparticipantsforempiricalsoftware engineeringstudies,in:2024IEEESymposiumonVisualLanguagesandHuman-CentricComputing(VL/HCC),IEEE, 2024, pp. 417–422

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2561760522000378

    A.Mao,L.Tam,A.Xu,K.Osborn,M.Sheffrin,C.Gould,E.Schillinger,M.Martin,M.Mesias,BarrierstoTelemedicine VideoVisitsforOlderAdultsinIndependentLivingFacilities:MixedMethodsCross-sectionalNeedsAssessment,JMIR Aging 5 (2) (2022).doi:https://doi.org/10.2196/34326. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2561760522000378

    work page doi:10.2196/34326 2022

  46. [46]

    Esaki, System quality requirement and evaluation, Global Perspectives on Engineering Management 2 (2) (2001) 52–59

    K. Esaki, System quality requirement and evaluation, Global Perspectives on Engineering Management 2 (2) (2001) 52–59

    work page 2001

  47. [47]

    B. ISO, B. STANDARD, Ergonomics of human-system interaction, British Standards Institution (2010)

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    G.Voria,G.Sellitto,C.Ferrara,F.Abate,A.DeLucia,F.Ferrucci,G.Catolino,F.Palomba,Acatalogoffairness-aware practices in machine learning engineering, in: Proceedings of the 2025 29th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering Companion, 2025, pp. 72–81

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Gentili, D

    E. Gentili, D. Falessi, Characterizing requirements smells, in: International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Springer, 2023, pp. 387–398

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    N.Alhammad,M.Alajlani,A.Abd-Alrazaq,G.Epiphaniou,T.Arvanitis,Patients’perspectivesonthedataconfidential- ity, privacy, and security of mhealth apps: systematic review, Journal of medical internet research 26 (2024) e50715

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Rezaee, M

    R. Rezaee, M. Khashayar, S. Saeedinezhad, M. Nasiri, S. Zare, Critical criteria and countermeasures for mobile health developers to ensure mobile health privacy and security: mixed methods study, JMIR mHealth and uHealth 11 (2023) e39055. Xiao et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 30 of 36 Requirements Perception Gap across Stakeholders of Aged Care D...

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    M.Basha,G.Rodríguez-Pérez,Trust,transparency,andadoptioningenerativeaiforsoftwareengineering:Insightsfrom twitter discourse, Information and Software Technology 186 (2025) 107804

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Balasubramaniam, M

    N. Balasubramaniam, M. Kauppinen, H.-L. Truong, S. Kujala, Candidate solutions for defining explainability require- ments of ai systems, in: International Working Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, Springer, 2024, pp. 129–146

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, A. Buchner, G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, Behavior research methods 39 (2) (2007) 175–191

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    G.Norman,Likertscales,levelsofmeasurementandthe“laws”ofstatistics,Advancesinhealthscienceseducation15(5) (2010) 625–632

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    G. M. Sullivan, A. R. Artino Jr, Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales, Journal of graduate medical education 5 (4) (2013) 541–542

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    M. J. Gardner, D. G. Altman, Confidence intervals rather than p values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing., Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 292 (6522) (1986) 746–750

    work page 1986

  58. [58]

    L. N. Yaddanapudi, The american statistical association statement on p-values explained (2016)

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, routledge, 2013

    J. Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, routledge, 2013

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    Ho, The robustness to non-normality of significance levels of the t and f tests, Ph.D

    T.-y. Ho, The robustness to non-normality of significance levels of the t and f tests, Ph.D. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute (1965)

    work page 1965

  61. [61]

    L. L. Havlicek, N. L. Peterson, Robustness of the t test: A guide for researchers on effect of violations of assumptions, Psychological Reports 34 (3_suppl) (1974) 1095–1114

    work page 1974

  62. [62]

    C., Langlois, E

    J. Thomas, A. Harden, Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews 8 45.doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

    work page doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

  63. [63]

    D. S. Cruzes, T. Dyba, Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering, in: 2011 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 275–284, ISSN: 1949-3789.doi:10.1109/ ESEM.2011.36. URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6092576

    work page arXiv 2011

  64. [64]

    J. D. Portz, E. A. Bayliss, S. Bull, R. S. Boxer, D. B. Bekelman, K. Gleason, S. Czaja, Using the technology acceptance model to explore user experience, intent to use, and use behavior of a patient portal among older adults with multiplechronicconditions:Descriptivequalitativestudy21(4)e11604,company:JournalofMedicalInternetResearch Distributor: Journal ...

    work page doi:10.2196/11604 2019

  65. [65]

    H. R. Lee, S. Šabanović, W.-L. Chang, S. Nagata, J. Piatt, C. Bennett, D. Hakken, Steps toward participatory design of social robots: Mutual learning with older adults with depression, in: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International ConferenceonHuman-RobotInteraction,HRI’17,AssociationforComputingMachinery,pp.244–253.doi:10.1145/ 2909824.3020237. URLht...

    work page doi:10.1145/2909824.3020237 2017

  66. [66]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1459-6

    J.VanDamme,E.Neiterman,M.Oremus,K.Lemmon,P.Stolee,Perspectivesofolderadults,caregivers,andhealthcare providers on frailty screening: a qualitative study 20 (1) 65.doi:10.1186/s12877-020-1459-6. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1459-6

    work page doi:10.1186/s12877-020-1459-6

  67. [67]

    X. Yang, X. Li, S. Jiang, X. Yu, Effects of telemedicine on informal caregivers of patients in palliative care: Systematic review and meta-analysis 12 (1) e54244, company: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Distributor: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Institution: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Label: JMIR mHealth and uHealth.doi:10.2196/54244. URLhttps://mhealth.jmir.org/2024/1/e54244

    work page doi:10.2196/54244 2024

  68. [68]

    Banbury, L

    A. Banbury, L. Parkinson, S. Nancarrow, J. Dart, L. Gray, J. Buckley, Multi-site videoconferencing for home-based education of older people with chronic conditions: the telehealth literacy project 20 (7) 353–359.doi:10.1177/ 1357633X14552369. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X14552369

    work page doi:10.1177/1357633x14552369

  69. [69]

    Mannheim, E

    I. Mannheim, E. J. M. Wouters, H. Köttl, L. C. van Boekel, R. Brankaert, Y. van Zaalen, Ageism in the discourse and practiceofdesigningdigitaltechnologyforolderpersons:Ascopingreview63(7)1188–1200.doi:10.1093/geront/ gnac144

    work page doi:10.1093/geront/

  70. [70]

    URLhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1882577

    J.Mariano,S.Marques,M.R.Ramos,F.Gerardo,C.L.D.Cunha,A.Girenko,J.Alexandersson,B.Stree,M.Lamanna, M.Lorenzatto,L.P.Mikkelsen,U.Bundgård-Jørgensen,S.Rêgo,H.DeVries,Toooldfortechnology?stereotypethreat and technology use by older adults 41 (7) 1503–1514.doi:10.1080/0144929X.2021.1882577. URLhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1882577

    work page doi:10.1080/0144929x.2021.1882577 2021

  71. [71]

    digital divide

    W. Yu, Y. Ji, Z. Li, K. Wang, X. Jiang, C. Chang, Study on the “digital divide” in the continuous utilization of internet medical services for older adults: Combination with PLS-SEM and fsQCA analysis approach 24 (1) 71.doi: 10.1186/s12939-025-02418-1. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02418-1

    work page doi:10.1186/s12939-025-02418-1

  72. [72]

    Gizaw, T

    Z. Gizaw, T. Astale, G. M. Kassie, What improves access to primary healthcare services in rural communities? a systematic review 23 (1) 313.doi:10.1186/s12875-022-01919-0. Xiao et al.:Preprint submitted to ElsevierPage 31 of 36 Requirements Perception Gap across Stakeholders of Aged Care Digital Health URLhttps://europepmc.org/articles/PMC9724256 A. Quali...

    work page doi:10.1186/s12875-022-01919-0