Co-designing technology for ageing in place: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Co-design in healthcare has become mainstream. Co-design with end-users can improve patient satisfaction, outcomes and reduce the cost of care. As populations age, there is a growing interest to involve the elderly in the co-design of health technology to maintain their well-being and independence. However, it is less clear if co-designed technology improves health and well-being outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate co-designed technology that supports elders to age in place. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to: i) investigate the health and well-being outcomes of co-designed technology for elders (≥ 60 years); ii) to identify co-design approaches and contexts where they are applied and; iii) to identify barriers and facilitators of the co-design process with elders. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, OpenGrey and Business Source Premiere databases using MeSH terms and key words. Results: We identified 14,649 articles of which 34 studies were included. Studies were from Europe (n=28), Australia (n=4), America (n=1) and Canada (n=1). Twenty of the 32 studies targeted older adults (≥ 60 years old) and 14 targeted specific medical conditions or elder-related issues. Technological solutions included robots, online applications and software, smart televisions, computer games for exercise, global positioning solutions, smart home systems and design of care pathways. Five studies reported health and well-being outcomes and were extracted. The health and well-being impact of co-designed technology was inconsistent. Co-design processes varied greatly and in their intensity of elder involvement. Common facilitators of and barriers to the co-design process included the building of relationships between stakeholders, stakeholder knowledge of problems and solutions, as well as expertise in the co-design methodology.Conclusions: The co-design approach was applied in the design of a diverse set of technologies. 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 the elderly population. More evaluation of the impact of co-designed technologies’ is needed and standardisation of the definition of co-design would be helpful to researchers and designers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».