MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120806386 · doi:10.2196/21461

Understanding Technology Preferences and Requirements for Health Information Technologies Designed to Improve and Maintain the Mental Health and Well-Being of Older Adults: Participatory Design Study

2021· article· en· W3120806386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haley M LaMonica, Tracey A Davenport, Anna Roberts, Ian B. Hickie

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of SydneyAustralian Government
KeywordsParticipatory designMental healthParticipatory action researchDigital healthPsychologyPopulationHealth literacyDigital literacyGerontologyMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicineHealth careEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, the population is aging rapidly; therefore, there is a growing interest in strategies to support and maintain health and well-being in later life. Although familiarity with technology and digital literacy are increasing among this group, some older adults still lack confidence in their ability to use web-based technologies. In addition, age-related changes in cognition, vision, hearing, and perception may be barriers to adoption and highlight the need for digital tools developed specifically to meet the unique needs of older adults. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to understand the use of technology by older adults in general and identify the potential barriers to and facilitators of the adoption of health information technologies (HITs) to support the health and well-being of older adults to facilitate implementation and promote user uptake. In addition, this study aims to co-design and configure the InnoWell Platform, a digital tool designed to facilitate better outcomes for people seeking mental health services, to meet the needs of adults 50 years and older and their supportive others (eg, family members, caregivers) to ensure the accessibility, engagement, and appropriateness of the technology. METHODS: Participants were adults 50 years and older and those who self-identified as a supportive other (eg, family member, caregiver). Participants were invited to participate in a 3-hour participatory design workshop using a variety of methods, including prompted discussion, creation of descriptive artifacts, and group-based development of user journeys. RESULTS: Four participatory design workshops were conducted, including a total of 21 participants, each attending a single workshop. Technology use was prevalent, with a preference indicated for smartphones and computers. Factors facilitating the adoption of HITs included personalization of content and functionality to meet and be responsive to a consumer's needs, access to up-to-date information from reputable sources, and integration with standard care practices to support the relationship with health professionals. Concerns regarding data privacy and security were the primary barriers to the use of technology to support mental health and well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Although HITs have the potential to improve access to cost-effective and low-intensity interventions at scale for improving and maintaining mental health and well-being, several strategies may improve the uptake and efficacy of technologies by the older adult community, including the use of co-design methodologies to ensure usability, acceptability, and appropriateness of the technology; support in using and understanding the clinical applications of the technology by a digital navigator; and ready availability of education and training materials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207