Benefit and usability of a senior tablet and an emergency smartwatch for older adults and their relatives: Results from a prospective user study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Assistive technologies (ATs) have the potential to promote quality of life and independent living of older adults but also to relieve the burden of caregivers and relatives.However, evidence on effectiveness of ATs in the real-world application remains scarce.We conducted a prospective, exploratory user study to test the perceived benefit and satisfaction with different ATs in the real-world environment.Methods Community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 and their relatives tested either a tablet with a simplified interface or a smartwatch with programmable emergency contacts for eight weeks in their everyday life.Benefits and usability of AT were assessed by all older adults and their relatives using different assessment tools employed prior to and/or after the intervention.Outcome measures included the Technology Usage Inventory, Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM).Results 17 older adults and 16 relatives were included.Participants in the smartwatch group were slightly frailer and more dependent and reported non-significantly higher technology acceptance and satisfaction scores than those of the tablet group (P>.05).Relatives had significantly higher ratings on the item intention to use than older adults in the tablet group (t=3.3,P=.006).Identified everyday issues with the COPM included contact/communication and entertainment/information for the tablet, safety and getting help in emergency situations for the smartwatch, and AT usability for both devices.In the smartwatch group, performance (t=3.5, P=.008) and satisfaction (t=3.2,P=.01) in these domains improved significantly, whereas changes experienced by the tablet group were not statistically significant (all P>.05).Conclusions This study highlights remaining obstacles for a widespread and effective application of ATs in everyday life of older adults and their relatives.While the results do not provide evidence for a positive effect regarding communication deficits, benefits could be shown for the area of safety.To enhance the acceptance and impact of ATs, it is essential to consider the preferences, challenges, and objectives of not only frail older adults but also their relatives and caregivers during the technological design process.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".