An Accessible Multifunctional System to Support Safe and Independent Aging in Place: Iterative Development and Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The global population of older adults is rapidly increasing, while the number of relative caregivers is declining. This creates a critical need for solutions that support caregiving and enable older adults to age in place while maintaining their independence. Many existing caregiving technologies focus on easing caregivers' burdens through surveillance-based systems, which often prioritize caregivers' needs over those of older adults. Such designs can unintentionally disempower older adults by devaluing their autonomy and decision-making capabilities. Objective: This study explored older adults' and designers' reactions to a technology-enabled system called LifeTomorrow that was built by centering older adults as the primary users. The system aims to support their autonomy to make informed choices and their desire for independent living, while balancing their social and functional needs with those of informal caregivers. Methods: A total of 37 participants, including older adults, caregivers, and designers, engaged in 2 iterative rounds of user studies to explore daily caregiving needs and technology usage. The system's design and features were refined based on these insights. A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using the framework of the self-determination theory to evaluate how the system fulfills the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Results: The analysis underscored the system's value to older adults and their caregivers, and its fulfillment of basic human psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness), consistent with the goals of supporting a high quality of life for older users and caregivers. We found that relatedness is fostered through features enabling remote connection and communication, such as chat functions and shared health data. Autonomy is supported by empowering older adults to manage their health information, make informed choices about data sharing, and benefit from safety features like fall detection and emergency calls. Competence is enhanced through accessible design elements, including intuitive navigation, high-contrast visuals, and multigenerational usability. These features allow older adults and caregivers to confidently engage with the system and are targeted at improving their overall quality of life. Conclusions: Through evaluation of the LifeTomorrow system, this study suggests possibilities for using a holistic, inclusive solution to support safe and independent aging in place and prioritizing the autonomy and empowerment of older adults while addressing caregivers' needs for support and connection. By centering older adults as active participants rather than passive recipients of care, the system exemplifies a shift toward equitable, user-centered technology in caregiving. Future research should investigate the long-term impacts of such systems on aging-in-place outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".