MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387439229 · doi:10.2196/51129

Coadaptation Between Smart Technologies and Older Adults Over Time: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4387439229 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kristina M. Kokorelias, Alisa Grigorovich, Maurita T. Harris, Umair Rehman, Louise Ritchie, AnneMarie Levy, Kerstin Denecke, Josephine McMurray

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityWilfrid Laurier UniversityBrock UniversitySinai Health SystemToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOScopusMEDLINESystematic reviewCochrane LibraryPopulationProtocol (science)Data extractionGrey literatureComputer scienceMeta-analysisPsychologyData scienceMedicineGerontologyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Internet of Things (IoT) has gained significant attention due to advancements in technology and has potential applications in meeting the needs of an aging population. Smart technologies, a subset of IoT, can support older adults in aging in place, promoting independent living and improving their quality of life. However, there is a lack of research on how older adults and smart technologies coadapt over time to maximize their benefits and sustain adoption. OBJECTIVE: We will aim to comprehensively review and analyze the existing scientific literature pertaining to the coadaptation between smart technologies and older adults. The primary focus will be to investigate the extent and nature of this coadaptation process and explore how older adults and technology coevolve over time to enhance older adults' experience with technology. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the methodology outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual and adhere to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines for reporting. Peer-reviewed articles will be searched in databases like Ovid MEDLINE, OVID Embase, PEDro, OVID PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus. The research team will create a data extraction form covering study characteristics, participant characteristics, underlying models and frameworks, research findings, implications for technology coadaptation, and any identified study limitations. A directed content analysis approach will be used, incorporating the Selection, Optimization, and Compensation framework and Sex- and Gender-Based Analysis Plus theoretical framework. RESULTS: The results of this study are expected in January 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review endeavors to present a thorough overview of the available evidence concerning how smart technologies interact with older adults over an extended period. The insights gained from this review will lay the groundwork for a research program that explores how older adults adapt to and use smart technologies throughout their lives, ultimately leading to improved user satisfaction and experience and facilitating aging in place with tailored support and user-centered design principles. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51129.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.474
GPT teacher head0.643
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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