Developing Independent Living Support for Older Adults Using Internet of Things and AI-Based Systems: Co-Design Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The number of older people with unmet health care and support needs is increasing substantially due to the challenges facing health care systems worldwide. There are potentially great benefits to using the Internet of Things coupled with artificial intelligence to support independent living and the measurement of health risks, thus improving quality of life for the older adult population. Taking a co-design approach has the potential to ensure that these technological solutions are developed to address specific user needs and requirements. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders' perceptions of independent living and technology solutions, identify stakeholders' suggestions on how technology could assist older adults to live independently, and explore the acceptability and usefulness of a prototype Internet of Things solution called the NEX system to support independent living for an older adult population. Methods: The development of the NEX system was carried out in 3 key phases with a strong focus on diverse stakeholder involvement. The initial predesign exploratory phase recruited 17 stakeholders, including older adults and family caregivers, using fictitious personas and scenarios to explore initial perceptions of independent living and technology solutions. The subsequent co-design and testing phase expanded this to include a comprehensive web-based survey completed by 380 stakeholders, encompassing older adults, family caregivers, health care professionals, and home care support staff. This phase also included prototype testing at home by 7 older adults to assess technology needs, requirements, and the initial acceptability of the system. Finally, in the postdesign phase, workshops were held between academic and industry partners to analyze data collected from the earlier stages and to discuss recommendations for the future development of the system. Results: The predesign phase revealed 3 broad themes: loneliness and technology, aging and technology, and adopting and using technology. The co-design phase highlighted key areas where technology could assist older adults to live independently: home security, falls and loneliness, remote monitoring by family members, and communication with clients. Prototype testing revealed that the acceptability aspects of the prototype varied across technology types. Ambient sensors and voice-activated assistants were described as the most acceptable technology by participants. Last, the postdesign analysis process highlighted that ambient sensors have the potential for automatic detection of activities of daily living, resulting in key recommendations for future developments and deployments in this area. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the significance of incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives in developing solutions that support independent living. Additionally, it emphasizes the advantages of prototype testing in home environments, offering crucial insights into the real-world experiences of users interacting with technological solutions.
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 | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".