Exploring How Older Adults Experience semAPP, a 360° Media–Based Tool for Memory Assessment: Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Technology is already a part of our daily lives, and its influence is growing rapidly. This evolution has not spared the health care field. Nowadays, a crucial challenge is considering aspects such as design, development, and implementation, highlighting their functionality, ease of use, compatibility, performance, and safety when a new technological tool is developed. As noted in many works, the abandonment rate is usually higher when a user has a terrible experience with these instruments. It would be appropriate to incorporate the final users-whether they are patients, health care professionals, or both-in the stages of instrument design to understand their needs and preferences. Since most apps that fail did not include end users and health care professionals in the development phase, their involvement at all stages of app development may increase their commitment and improve integration, self-management, and health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims (1) to develop semAPP (spatial and episodic memory assessment application), a 360° media-based tool, to assess memory in aging by simulating a real-life situation and (2) to test the usability of the app and the connected experience in an end-user population. METHODS: A total of 34 older adults participated in the study: 16 (47%) healthy individuals and 18 (53%) patients with mild cognitive impairment. They used semAPP and completed qualitative and quantitative measures. The app includes 2 parts: object recognition and spatial memory tasks. During the first task, users have to navigate in an apartment freely and visit rooms, and then they must recognize the right map of the house. In the second task, users are immersed in a living room, and they have to encode and then recall some target objects, simulating a relocation. We deployed this app on an 11.2-inch iPad, and we tested its usability and the experience of users interacting with the app. We conducted descriptive analyses for both the entire sample and each subgroup; we also conducted parametric and correlation analyses to compare groups and to examine the relationship between task execution and the virtual experience, as well as the acceptance of technology. RESULTS: Both groups judged the app as an easy-to-use tool, and they were willing to use it. Moreover, the results match the idea that usability might be influenced by different factors depending on instrument and personal features, such as presentation, functionality, system performance, interactive behavior, attitudes, skills, and personality. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the possibility of using semAPP in older patients, as well as the importance of designing and evaluating new technological tools, considering not only the general population but also the specific target ones.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».