Towards Explainable Stakeholder-Aware Requirements Prioritisation in Aged-Care Digital Health
arXiv:2603.29114v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Requirements engineering for aged-care digital health must account for human aspects, because requirement priorities are shaped not only by technical functionality but also by stakeholders' health conditions, socioeconomics, and lived experience. Knowing which human aspects matter most, and for whom, is critical for inclusive and evidence-based requirements prioritisation. Yet in practice, while some studies have examined human aspects in RE, they have largely relied on expert judgement or model-driven analysis rather than large-scale user studies with meaningful human-in-the-loop validation to determine which aspects matter most and why. To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study with 103 older adults, 105 developers, and 41 car
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Requirements engineering for aged-care digital health must account for human aspects, because requirement priorities are shaped not only by technical functionality but also by stakeholders' health conditions, socioeconomics, and lived experience. Knowing which human aspects matter most, and for whom, is critical for inclusive and evidence-based requirements prioritisation. Yet in practice, while some studies have examined human aspects in RE, they have largely relied on expert judgement or model-driven analysis rather than large-scale user studies with meaningful human-in-the-loop validation to determine which aspects matter most and why. To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study with 103 older adults, 105 developers, and 41 caregivers. We first applied an explainable machine learning to identify the human aspects most strongly associated with requirement priorities across 8 aged-care digital health themes, and then conducted 12 semi-structured interviews to validate and interpret the quantitative patterns. The results identify the key human aspects shaping requirement priorities, reveal their directional effects, and expose substantial misalignment across stakeholder groups. Together, these findings show that human-centric requirements analysis should engage stakeholder groups explicitly rather than collapsing their perspectives into a single aggregate view. This paper contributes an identification of the key human aspects driving requirement priorities in aged-care digital health and an explainable, human-centric RE framework that combines ML-derived importance rankings with qualitative validation to surface the stakeholder misalignments that inclusive requirements engineering must address.
Subjects:
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.29114 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2603.29114v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.29114
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Yuqing Xiao [view email] [v1] Tue, 31 Mar 2026 01:03:42 UTC (2,776 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
modelannounceanalysis
Seedance 2.0 API: A Technical Guide to AI Video Generation with Pricing and Integration Examples
This post covers the Seedance 2.0 API — a unified AI video generation interface from EvoLink.ai that exposes text-to-video, image-to-video, and reference-to-video capabilities through a single consistent API. The focus here is on technical integration patterns, model selection logic, and cost modeling — the parts that matter when you’re building a real system around this. API Design: Unified Async Task Model The central design of Seedance 2.0 is a unified async task pattern across all generation modes. Rather than separate endpoints with different request and response schemas, every generation request follows the same lifecycle: POST /v1/videos/generations — submit task, receive ID immediately GET /v1/tasks/{id} — poll for status and progress Download video from result URL once status == "
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
RFT FPCM OV - a Hugging Face Space by RFTSystems
huggingface.co RFT FPCM OV - a Hugging Face Space by RFTSystems RFT Fixed Parameter Cosmology Model, Open Validation 1. Fixed‑Parameter Cosmology Panel (FPCM‑OV) This side of the Space shows the core RFT cosmology running on one locked parameter set. Nothing adjusts itself — the whole model stands or falls on this single solution. What people can see here Age at z = 13.67: RFT gives 568.52 Myr , which lines up with JWST early‑galaxy maturity without any tuning. Horizon Ratio: The model naturally produces a horizon about 490× larger than ΛCDM. (This removes the horizon problem without inflation.) Unified Expansion Curve (H_RFT) The purple curve shows how expansion behaves across all redshifts using the same fixed parameters. JWST Maturity Plot The cyan and red lines show how RFT’s predicted
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!