Developing a One-Stop Platform Transportation Planning Service to Help Older Adults Move Around in Their Community Where, When, and How They Wish: Protocol for a Living Lab Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple mobility-related challenges frequently appear with aging. As a result, many older adults have difficulty getting around, to go, for example, to doctors' appointments or leisure activities. Although various means of transportation are currently available, older adults do not necessarily use them, partly because they do not know which ones are adapted to their needs and preferences. To foster older adults' autonomy and freedom in their decision-making about transportation, it is crucial to help them make informed decisions about the means that suit them best. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to develop Mobilainés, a one-stop platform transportation planning service combining different transport modes and services to help older adults move around in their community where, when, and how they wish. More specifically, we aim to (1) define older adults' mobility needs and preferences in order to conceptualize a one-stop platform; (2) cocreate a prototype of the one-stop platform; and (3) test the prototype with users in a real-life context. METHODS: This ongoing study uses a "Living Lab" co-design approach. This approach differs from traditional research on aging by facilitating intersectoral knowledge sharing and innovative solutions by and with older adults themselves. A steering committee of 8 stakeholders from the public, scientific, and private sectors, as well as older citizens, will meet quarterly throughout the study. The design comprises three phases, each with several iterative subphases. Phase 1 is exploration: through co-design workshops and literature reviews, members of the intersectoral committee will define older adults' mobility needs and preferences to support the conceptualization of the one-stop platform. Phase 2 is experimentation: 4 personas will be produced that reflect the different needs and preferences of typical older adult end users of the platform; for development of a prototype, scenarios and mockups (static designs of the web application) will be created through co-design sessions with older adults (N=12) embodying these personas. Phase 3 is evaluation: we will test the usability of the prototype and document changes in mobility, such as the ability to move around satisfactorily and to participate in meaningful activities, by and with older adults (N=30) who use the prototype. The steering committee will identify ways to support the adoption, implementation, and scaling up of Mobilainés to ensure its sustainability. Qualitative and quantitative data will be triangulated according to each subphase objective. RESULTS: The first phase began in September 2019. The study is scheduled for completion by mid-2023. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative transportation planning service will merge existing transportation options in one place. By meeting a wide variety of older adults' needs and preferences, Mobilainés will help them feel comfortable and safe when moving around, which should increase their participation in meaningful activities and reduce the risk of social isolation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/33894.
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 | 0.042 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.009 |
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".