Considerations When Designing Inclusive Digital Health Solutions for Older Adults Living With Frailty or Impairments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This viewpoint is written by authors with industrial, clinical, and academic backgrounds within medical and social sciences. The purpose is to share our experiences with digital health innovation from a sociotechnical perspective. The audience for the viewpoint is innovators, researchers, service designers, and project managers with little or some experience with theory-informed programs, complex interventions, and implementation or reorganization of sociotechnical ecosystems in health care. In digital health innovation projects, barriers related to traditions and cultures among researchers, clinicians, and industry may arise. Moreover, the final digital solutions may not always fit into existing digital ecosystems and may thus require a reorganization of how health care is provided at horizontal and vertical levels. The collaborating researchers have experience working in the field of digital health innovation for more than a decade, and we have developed and used 4 frameworks and models that are particularly relevant for theory-based complex interventions and can be used to inform inclusive co-design of digital health solutions with a sociotechnical perspective. These are (1) the 4E, a matrix to include, engage, empower, and emancipate marginalized people; (2) the GO-TO model, which can be used as a design navigator; (3) the Epital Care Model, to inform infrastructure; and (4) the Readiness and Enablement Index for Health Technology instrument, to stratify service users. From January 2021 to September 2024, we had the opportunity to apply these into practice in 4 living labs located in Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada as a part of a European Union-funded project on "Smart Inclusive Living Environments." The goal was to cocreate a digital solution and reorganize health care services to reduce social isolation, increase health literacy, and enhance well-being for older adults living with frailty or impairments. Based on our experiences with the Smart Inclusive Living Environments project, we have formed a proposal for how design guidelines for sociotechnical innovation projects can be structured, backed up with reflections based on our experiences. With that, design guidelines should include three areas: (1) a common vocabulary including theories, frameworks, and models; (2) templates and protocols for methods, including detailed guidelines and templates for the planned development of the technologies; and (3) methods to implement and provide education and training of service users and informal and formal caregivers. In the design process, we emphasize the importance of involving relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the created design guidelines to obtain preparedness in the organizations, as well as including putative service users to ensure the likelihood of adoption. Moreover, it is important to align expectations, have a common understanding of the applied frameworks and methods, and have access to the necessary resources to reach successful results.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».