“Think of It Like a Game”: Older Adults’ and Health Professionals’ Perspectives on Interactive Exercise Technology Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Interactive exercise technology (IET) is an effective and practical way to support physiotherapy for older adults. The purpose of this study was to use design thinking to collect feedback on the first iteration of an IET prototype from older adults and health professionals and to use that feedback to gain an understanding of their needs and values, with the goal of developing recommendations to inform the second iteration of the IET prototype. Method: This study was conducted using three steps of design thinking: (1) test, in which four focus groups were conducted, asking older adults and health professionals about their perspectives on an IET prototype; (2) empathize, in which the focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed and thematic content analysis was conducted; and (3) define, in which the needs and values of the participants were identified. Results: The participants were 19 health professionals and four older adults. Four themes, which represented the values that these groups held regarding IET design, were revealed: instruction, safety, accessibility, and motivation. Conclusions: Older adults and health professionals have specific needs for the design of IET, which should be considered in the development of future IET.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".