Supporting Healthy Aging through the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Assistive Technology Implementation: A Rapid Realist Review of Participatory Co-Design for Assistive Technology with Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify the key mechanisms, contexts, and outcomes that drive the successful participatory co-design of assistive technologies. Method: A rapid realist review was conducted using a systematic search strategy. After screening, a final set of 28 articles were included. Articles were analyzed for evidence relevant to our initial program theory (IPT), and context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed, resulting in a revised program theory. Results: All 28 articles included were highly relevant to the IPT, and had sufficient detail regarding the process of participatory co-design. The findings of this review highlight several key context-mechanism-outcome configurations as potential patterns in the data under the two dimensions of the evolving program theory: knowledge integration and the ethico-political dimension. Discussion: This review revealed the key mechanisms of mutual awareness, mutual learning, trust, and reciprocity that need to be taken into account in AT development and assessment. We concluded that participatory co-design requires a restructuring of power relations between end-users and those traditionally in control of technology design. These findings inform the development and assessment of AT for older adults and help guide policy/decision-makers to move forward with the now urgent agenda for scale-up and spread, initiated by the burning platform of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".