Exploring the Landscape of Standards and Guidelines in AgeTech Design and Development: Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: AgeTech (technology for older people) offers digital solutions for older adults supporting aging in place, including digital health, assistive technology, Internet of Things, medical devices, robotics, wearables, and sensors. This study underscores the critical role of standards and guidelines in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of these technologies for the health of older adults. As the aging demographic expands, the focus on robust standards becomes vital, reflecting a collective commitment to improving the overall quality of life for older individuals through thoughtful and secure technology integration. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to investigate the current state of standards and guidelines applied in AgeTech design and development as reported in academic literature. We explore the existing knowledge of these standards and guidelines and identify key gaps in the design and development of AgeTech guidelines and standards in scholarly publications. METHODS: The literature review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Searches were carried out across multiple databases, including Scopus, IEEE, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, using a search string incorporating concepts such as "older people," "technology," and "standards or guidelines." Alternative terms, Boolean operators, and truncation were used for comprehensive coverage in each database. The synthesis of results and data analysis involved both quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Initially, 736 documents were identified across various databases. After applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria and a screening process, 58 documents were selected for full-text review. The findings highlight that the most frequently addressed aspect of AgeTech standards or guidelines is related to "design and development," constituting 36% (21/58) of the literature; "usability and user experience" was the second most prevalent aspect, accounting for 19% (11/58) of the documents. In contrast, "privacy and security" (1/58, 2%) and "data quality" (1/58, 2%) were the least addressed aspects. Similarly, "ethics," "integration and interoperability," "accessibility," and "acceptance or adoption" each accounted for 3% (2/58) of the documents. In addition, a thematic analysis identified qualitative themes that warrant further exploration of variables. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigated the available knowledge regarding standards and guidelines in AgeTech design and development to evaluate their current status in academic literature. The substantial focus on assistive technologies and ambient assisted living technologies confirmed their vital role in AgeTech. The findings provide valuable insights for interested parties and point to prioritized areas for further development and research in the AgeTech domain.
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 | 0.320 | 0.520 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.059 | 0.062 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".