An Accessible Multifunctional System to Support Safe and Independent Aging in Place: Iterative Development and Qualitative Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The global population of older adults is rapidly increasing, while the number of relative caregivers is declining. This creates a critical need for solutions that support caregiving and enable older adults to age in place while maintaining their independence. Many existing caregiving technologies focus on easing caregivers' burdens through surveillance-based systems, which often prioritize caregivers' needs over those of older adults. Such designs can unintentionally disempower older adults by devaluing their autonomy and decision-making capabilities. Objective: This study explored older adults' and designers' reactions to a technology-enabled system called LifeTomorrow that was built by centering older adults as the primary users. The system aims to support their autonomy to make informed choices and their desire for independent living, while balancing their social and functional needs with those of informal caregivers. Methods: A total of 37 participants, including older adults, caregivers, and designers, engaged in 2 iterative rounds of user studies to explore daily caregiving needs and technology usage. The system's design and features were refined based on these insights. A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using the framework of the self-determination theory to evaluate how the system fulfills the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Results: The analysis underscored the system's value to older adults and their caregivers, and its fulfillment of basic human psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness), consistent with the goals of supporting a high quality of life for older users and caregivers. We found that relatedness is fostered through features enabling remote connection and communication, such as chat functions and shared health data. Autonomy is supported by empowering older adults to manage their health information, make informed choices about data sharing, and benefit from safety features like fall detection and emergency calls. Competence is enhanced through accessible design elements, including intuitive navigation, high-contrast visuals, and multigenerational usability. These features allow older adults and caregivers to confidently engage with the system and are targeted at improving their overall quality of life. Conclusions: Through evaluation of the LifeTomorrow system, this study suggests possibilities for using a holistic, inclusive solution to support safe and independent aging in place and prioritizing the autonomy and empowerment of older adults while addressing caregivers' needs for support and connection. By centering older adults as active participants rather than passive recipients of care, the system exemplifies a shift toward equitable, user-centered technology in caregiving. Future research should investigate the long-term impacts of such systems on aging-in-place outcomes.
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 | 0,025 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».