Interactive CaringTV® supporting elderly living at home

Lehto, Paula

doi:10.4066/amj.2013.1800

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These included contact made through local support groups for people with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) [ 27 ] and through posters and written materials physically placed in local public areas and sent out electronically (ie, through social media) [ 30 ]. Finally, in 4 studies, the recruitment strategy was not described [ 29 , 34 , 39 , 43 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The technologies developed in these studies include various digital and web-based solutions, such as applications and digital platforms (18/22, 82%) [ 27 - 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 - 47 ], assistive technologies (2/22, 9%) [ 37 , 40 ], wearables (1/22, 5%) [ 26 ], and interactive caring television (1/22, 5%) [ 43 ]. In 64% (14/22) of studies, different variations in outcomes were presented, including those involving participant contributions; for example, how involvement led to a list of themes to be considered when developing an app based on end user needs [ 36 ] and how inputs from patients were used to identify design requirements for the interface [ 35 ] and to develop a platform [ 43 ]. Older people also assessed accessibility, leading to 7 features being included in an apps to prevent delirium in hospitalized older people [ 42 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 9% (2/22) of studies, participants were included in all 4 parts of the development process including, needs identification, conceptualization, prototyping, and final evaluation [ 32 , 34 ]. In 23% (5/22) of studies, participants were included in 3 parts of the development process [ 33 , 41 - 43 , 45 ], and in 23% (5/22) of studies, older people were included in 2 parts of the development process [ 27 , 28 , 31 , 35 , 37 ]. This overview shows that 12 (55%) of the 22 studies present a combined ecosystem of methods, with consecutive steps that aim to ensure the involvement of older people in different parts of the development process of a digital health technology, from the identification of needs to the generation of ideas, cocreation of a specific product, and final evaluation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Involving Older People With Frailty or Impairment in the Design Process of Digital Health Technologies to Enable Aging in Place: Scoping Review

Wegener¹,

Bergschöld²,

Whitmore³

et al. 2023

JMIR Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With an increase in life expectancy globally, the focus on digital health technologies that can enhance physical and mental health among older people with frailty and impairment has increased. Similarly, research interest in how digital health technology can promote well-being and self-management of health in older age has increased, including an increased focus on methods for designing digital health technologies that meet the various medical, psychological, and social needs of older population. Despite the increased focus, there remains a necessity to further understand the needs of this population group to ensure uptake and to avoid introduction of additional challenges when introducing technologies, for example, because of poor technological design. The scope is limited to digital health technologies meant to enable older people with frailty and impairment to age in place. Objective In this study, we aimed to explore how older people with frailty and impairment are involved in various parts of the design processes of digital health technologies and identify gaps or neglected steps in a user-involving design process. This included a focus on recruitment strategies, contributions, and methods used to address the perspectives, needs, and desires of older people with frailty and impairment in the development of digital health technologies. Methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) reporting from February 2021 to April 2021. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and IEEE using a search string covering the concepts of health technology, older people, frailty and impairment, user-centered design, and self-management. Results In total, 1891 studies were imported for screening from the initial search. A total of 22 studies were included in this review after full-text screening and manual search. Invitation through partners was the most reported recruitment strategy to involve older people with frailty and impairment in the design process of digital health technologies. Furthermore, they were commonly involved in the final evaluation of the development process. Three main gaps identified were the use of outreach approaches to recruit older people with frailty and impairment in the design process of digital health technologies, description of the value of involvement and outcome of the contribution of participants, and knowledge regarding involvement in all parts of the design process. Conclusions Although there is literature on methods for involving older people with frailty and impairment in the design of digital health technology, there is little methodological dialogue on the nuances of how different methods for involvement relate to and shape the outcome of the development process.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Involving Older People With Frailty or Impairment in the Design Process of Digital Health Technologies to Enable Aging in Place: Scoping Review

Wegener¹,

Bergschöld²,

Whitmore³

et al. 2023

JMIR Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three additional projects included health and well-being outcomes but could not be extracted. One, a cross-sectional study, had no comparison group ( Lehto, 2013 ), the second, a pre–post cohort, reported predictors of falls and disability ( Vermeulen et al., 2015 ), and the third, another pre–post study ( Hepburn, 2018 ), has yet to publish its health and well-being findings.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluation in the real-world setting often occurred as part of prototype development, to test and refine the functionality of the product before final evaluation. Five of the included projects discussed the use of a “living lab” environment ( Cavallo et al., 2013 ; Frennert et al., 2013 ; Iacono & Marti, 2014 ; Lehto, 2013 ; Lopes et al., 2016 ). Of these projects, most used the term “living lab” incorrectly to refer to an experiment in a controlled laboratory setting and not in the field.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives There is a growing interest to involve older adults in the co-design of technology to maintain their well-being and independence. What remains unknown is whether the beneficial effects of co-designed solutions are greater than those reported for non co-designed solutions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and experiences of co-designed technology that support older adults to age in place. Research Design and Methods We conducted a systematic review to (a) investigate the health and well-being outcomes of co-designed technology for older adults (≥60 years), (b) identify co-design approaches and contexts where they are applied, and (c) identify barriers and facilitators of the co-design process with older adults. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, OpenGrey, and Business Source Premiere. Results We identified 14,649 articles and included 34 projects. Four projects reported health and well-being outcomes; the effects were inconsistent. Co-design processes varied greatly and in their intensity of older adult involvement. Common facilitators of and barriers to co-design included the building of relationships between stakeholders, stakeholder knowledge of problems and solutions, and expertise in the co-design methodology. Discussion and Implications The effect of co-designed technology on health and well-being was rarely studied and it was difficult to ascertain its impact. Future co-design efforts need to address barriers unique to older adults. Evaluation of the impact of co-designed technologies is needed and standardization of the definition of co-design would be helpful to researchers and designers.

show abstract