Evaluating a Smart Textile Loneliness Monitoring System for Older People: Co-Design and Qualitative Focus Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have explored how sensor technologies can assist in in the detection, recognition, and prevention of subjective loneliness. These studies have shown a correlation between physiological and behavioral sensor data and the experience of loneliness. However, little research has been conducted on the design requirements from the perspective of older people and stakeholders in technology development. The use of these technologies and infrastructural questions have been insufficiently addressed. Systems generally consist of sensors or software installed in smartphones or homes. However, no studies have attempted to use smart textiles, which are fabrics with integrated electronics. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand the design requirements for a smart textile loneliness monitoring system from the perspectives of older people and stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted co-design workshops with 5 users and 6 stakeholders to determine the design requirements for smart textile loneliness monitoring systems. We derived a preliminary product concept of the smart wearable and furniture system. Digital and physical models and a use case were evaluated in a focus group study with older people and stakeholders (n=7). RESULTS: The results provided insights for designing systems that use smart textiles to monitor loneliness in older people and widen their use. The findings informed the general system, wearables and furniture, materials, sensor positioning, washing, sensor synchronization devices, charging, intervention, and installation and maintenance requirements. This study provided the first insight from a human-centered perspective into smart textile loneliness monitoring systems for older people. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend more research on the intervention that links to the monitored loneliness in a way that addresses different needs to ensure its usefulness and value to people. Future systems must also reflect on questions of identification of system users and the available infrastructure and life circumstances of people. We further found requirements that included user cooperation, compatibility with other worn medical devices, and long-term durability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".