Keeping In Touch Everyday (KITE) project: developing assistive technologies with people with dementia and their carers to promote independence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of technology to facilitate independent living for people with dementia is not fully realized, with initial attempts (e.g. tracking devices) being considered unacceptable from a practical and ethical perspective. The aim of this study is to create acceptable and effective prototype technologies to facilitate independence for people with dementia through a user-centered design process involving them and their carers. METHOD: The study comprised a three-stage participatory design process: scoping stage (five focus groups, 10 people with dementia and 11 carers); participatory design stage (five workshops, 22 participants) and prototype development stage (four meetings with two people with dementia and one carer). Focus groups and workshops were digitally recorded, fully transcribed and subjected to constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: People with mild to moderate dementia enjoy a variety of activities both on their own and with their families; however, concerns included getting lost, a loss of confidence with curtailment of usual activities, and carer anxiety. Existing technologies (mobile phones) were used intermittently. Participants felt strongly that future devices should be disguised and be integrated easily into their daily routines. Suggested areas for functional improvement included two-way communications, flexibility of function as the illness progresses, and something to "guide" them home when out walking or driving. Attention should also be focused on minimizing the size, weight and visibility of devices to reduce stigmatization. CONCLUSION: Prototypes for two devices (armband and electronic notepad) were developed. The study showed that involving people with dementia in the process of participatory design is feasible and could lead to devices which are more acceptable and relevant to their needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it