Study reveals deep divide over AI health care priorities for older adults

by JMIR Publications

edited by Gaby Clark, reviewed by Andrew Zinin

Gaby Clark

Scientific Editor

Meet our editorial team
Behind our editorial process

Andrew Zinin

Chief Editor

Meet our editorial team
Behind our editorial process Editors' notes

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

proofread

The GIST Add as preferred source

While artificial intelligence (AI) holds immense promise for transforming health care for older adults, a new study published in JMIR Aging reveals significant friction between those who use AI health tools and those who create and fund them. Conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, the University of Iowa, and Washington University in St. Louis, the study highlights how key stakeholders—older adults, care partners, clinicians, health system leaders, developers and investors—hold fundamentally different definitions of value, usability and cost, creating systemic barriers to technology adoption.

Lead author Zhang Zhang, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Washington University in St. Louis), along with senior author Nancy L. Schoenborn, M.D. (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine), and a multidisciplinary team, conducted semi-structured interviews with 49 key stakeholders across six distinct groups. While every group agreed that cost, usability and value drive their decisions, their underlying priorities clashed:

• Older adults and care partners prioritized low out-of-pocket costs and physical and sensory accessibility.
• Clinicians focused on patient affordability and preventing workflow burnout.
• Payers and health system leaders evaluated overall return on investment (ROI), system integration and impact on high-cost health events.
• Developers and investors prioritized market size, scalability and profit margins to offset high regulatory and development risks.

These differing perspectives create distinct points of friction. End users expressed frustration over receiving AI tools that felt like "solutions in search of a problem," pointing to developer incentives that favor adapting existing AI tools over designing around the unique needs of older adults. Meanwhile, investors and developers noted that navigating regulatory timelines of 4 to 7 years and high financial risks forces them to seek massive profit margins, driving up ultimate costs for consumers.

To bridge this divide, the authors highlight actionable strategies, including early multistakeholder engagement, targeted public education to demystify AI for older adults and public-private partnerships—such as the Johns Hopkins Artificial Intelligence and Technology Collaboratory (JHU-AITC) for Aging Research—to de-risk early-stage development. They conclude that, as with prior health-related technology innovations, aligning decisional priorities across stakeholders remains critical to motivating impactful AI health technologies for older adults.

More information

Zhang Zhang et al, The Ways in Which Stakeholders Make Decisions About AI and Novel Technologies for the Health Care of Older Adults: Qualitative Interview Study, JMIR Aging (2026). DOI: 10.2196/86148

Key medical concepts

Artificial Intelligence

Clinical categories

Healthy agingGeriatric palliative care Provided by JMIR Publications Who's behind this story?

Gaby Clark

MA in English, copy editor since 2021 with experience in higher education and health content. Dedicated to trustworthy science news. Full profile →

Andrew Zinin

Master's in physics with research experience. Long-time science news enthusiast. Plays key role in Science X's editorial success. Full profile →

Citation: Study reveals deep divide over AI health care priorities for older adults (2026, July 30) retrieved 30 July 2026 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-07-reveals-deep-ai-health-priorities.html This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.