Jennifer Sumner1,2,3, Lin Siew Chong1,2, Anjali Bundele2, Yee Wei Lim1,2. 1. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 2. Medical Affairs - Research Innovation & Enterprise, Alexandra Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore. 3. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: There is a growing interest to involve older adults in the co-design of technology to maintain their well-being and independence. What remains unknown is whether the beneficial effects of co-designed solutions are greater than those reported for non-co-designed solutions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects and experiences of co-designed technology that supports older adults to age in place. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to: i) investigate the health and well-being outcomes of co-designed technology for older adults (≥ 60 years); ii) to identify co-design approaches and contexts where they are applied and; iii) to identify barriers and facilitators of the co-design process with older adults. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, OpenGrey and Business Source Premiere. RESULTS: We identified 14,649 articles and included 34 projects. Four projects reported health and well-being outcomes, the effects were inconsistent. Co-design processes varied greatly and in their intensity of older adult involvement. Common facilitators of and barriers to co-design included the building of relationships between stakeholders, stakeholder knowledge of problems and solutions, as well as expertise in the co-design methodology. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The effect of co-designed technology on health and well-being was rarely studied and it was difficult to ascertain its impact. Future co-design efforts need to address barriers unique to older adults. Evaluation of the impact of co-designed technologies' is needed and standardisation of the definition of co-design would be helpful to researchers and designers.
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: There is a growing interest to involve older adults in the co-design of technology to maintain their well-being and independence. What remains unknown is whether the beneficial effects of co-designed solutions are greater than those reported for non-co-designed solutions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects and experiences of co-designed technology that supports older adults to age in place. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to: i) investigate the health and well-being outcomes of co-designed technology for older adults (≥ 60 years); ii) to identify co-design approaches and contexts where they are applied and; iii) to identify barriers and facilitators of the co-design process with older adults. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, OpenGrey and Business Source Premiere. RESULTS: We identified 14,649 articles and included 34 projects. Four projects reported health and well-being outcomes, the effects were inconsistent. Co-design processes varied greatly and in their intensity of older adult involvement. Common facilitators of and barriers to co-design included the building of relationships between stakeholders, stakeholder knowledge of problems and solutions, as well as expertise in the co-design methodology. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The effect of co-designed technology on health and well-being was rarely studied and it was difficult to ascertain its impact. Future co-design efforts need to address barriers unique to older adults. Evaluation of the impact of co-designed technologies' is needed and standardisation of the definition of co-design would be helpful to researchers and designers.
Authors: Amy Cole; Daniel R Richardson; Karthik Adapa; Amro Khasawneh; Norah Crossnohere; John F P Bridges; Lukasz Mazur Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-06-29
Authors: Nicola Camp; Martin Lewis; Kirsty Hunter; Julie Johnston; Massimiliano Zecca; Alessandro Di Nuovo; Daniele Magistro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Beth K Jaworski; Katherine Taylor; Kelly M Ramsey; Adrienne J Heinz; Sarah Steinmetz; Jason E Owen; Jack Tsai; Robert H Pietrzak Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-04-05