Promoting Autonomy in Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: Co-Designing an Interactive Calendar for Memory Support
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) remains one of the most distressing public health challenges of our time, creating a critical need for tools that serve both care recipients and caregivers, especially in remote care settings. Interactive-Care (I-Care) is an innovative web-based remote caregiving platform designed to promote independence in AD patients while bridging both the physical and emotional gaps in caregiving. In this paper, we focus on I-Care’s calendar tool, developed to overcome the challenges presented by commonly used digital calendar platforms which impose high cognitive load and cause confusion among individuals with AD. We describe the iterative co-design process through which the calendar evolved, informed by multiple rounds of feedback and refinement.Participants/Methods: First, a calendar prototype was developed based on cognitive rehabilitation guidelines and existing calendar systems for individuals with mild cognitive impairment. The prototype was reviewed by experts in AD and dyads (care receiver and remote caregiver) who provided feedback and suggested modifications. The prototype was iteratively modified using this review-feedback-modification process 3 times. Next, two older adults (ages 84-88) with mild dementia (Montreal Cognitive Assessments of 19-20) participated in an iterative co-design process over the course of several interactions with the Calendar page. To quantitatively evaluate improvements, we conducted counterbalanced A/B testing comparing the pre-co-design and co-designed versions of the Calendar and additionally benchmarked its usability against Google Calendar. Participants also completed a custom Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire that included Likert ratings (1-5, 5 being the highest) of Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Intention to Use. Results: Successive Calendar design refinements incorporated a shaded column highlighting the current day, step-by-step pop-up workflow for event creation, flashing notifications for new calendar entries, and multiple concomitant alarm options. The co-designed Calendar received high average TAM ratings in terms of Perceived Ease of Use = 5.0, Perceived Usefulness = 4.8, and Intention to Use = 5.0, indicating strong acceptance and usability. A/B testing also demonstrated substantial improvements. In the previous interface, built similarly to Google Calendar, participants were unable to complete key tasks without assistance. In contrast, with the co-designed Calendar, all tasks were completed independently, with a reduction in event creation time from 252 seconds to 94 seconds. Navigation between weeks and selecting today’s date also became faster and more accurate. Participants reported substantially higher satisfaction with co-design Calendar compared to the prior version, citing ease of navigation and clarity of visual cues. In contrast, Google Calendar task completion elicited very poor satisfaction ratings, with one participant refusing to continue using it due to its complexity.Conclusions: The I-Care Calendar design process demonstrates that individuals with cognitive impairment can engage in co-design to good effect resulting in a Calendar they can use independently. High satisfaction ratings highlight its clarity, intuitive design, and accessibility, emphasizing the value of tailoring digital tools to the cognitive needs of older adults. These findings underscore the importance of a co-design approach in developing assistive technologies that support daily routines, autonomy, and overall quality of life for older adults with cognitive impairments.
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 | 0,008 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 ».