Key factors in the engineering process for systems for aging in place contributing to low usability and success

Purpose Digital systems for independent aging, support and care are not being adopted as hoped. The purpose of this paper is to examine the results of three studies to derive key factors during the development and engineering process of care and support systems for older people that can impact acceptance and uptake to provide support to future projects. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyzed the results of three qualitative studies, including two detailed case studies and a further study with 35 participants, to derive key factors. Methods for deriving factors are based on thematic analysis to identify common factors across cases and participants. Findings The findings point to a broad set of interconnected factors that give developers of these types of systems specific recommendations. These highlight what makes these projects complex and identify implications for the development process. Furthermore, they show way the needed user-centered and iterative methods may be in conflict with funding processes. Originality/value While others have reported on single projects or looked at acceptance, these studies were the first to explore aspects of the development process that may contribute to the lack of success to date of these types of systems. The results here support more successful outcomes in the future, both by helping people involved in the development of these systems to avoid some of the issues others face and providing input to improve the performance of the engineering process.

[1]  Martin Knapp,et al.  Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study , 2012, BMC Health Services Research.

[2]  Mark Blythe,et al.  Socially dependable design: The challenge of ageing populations for HCI , 2005, Interact. Comput..

[3]  Joseph P. Wherton,et al.  The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis , 2012, BMJ Open.

[4]  Anne Kärki,et al.  Technology and active agency of older adults living in service house environment , 2015, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[5]  Trisha Greenhalgh,et al.  What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. , 2013, Social science & medicine.

[6]  Geraldine Fitzpatrick,et al.  Why do few assistive technology systems make it to market? The case of the HandyHelper project , 2017, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[7]  Mattias Arvola,et al.  Personas in action: ethnography in an interaction design team , 2002, NordiCHI '02.

[8]  Harold W. Thimbleby,et al.  Understanding User Centred Design (UCD) for People with Special Needs , 2008, ICCHP.

[9]  Babak A. Farshchian,et al.  Stakeholder Attitudes Toward and Values Embedded in a Sensor-Enhanced Personal Emergency Response System , 2016, Interact. Comput..

[10]  Axel Helmer,et al.  A technical platform for environments for ageing – lessons learned from three field studies , 2014, Informatics for health & social care.

[11]  Joost van Hoof,et al.  Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review , 2014, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[12]  Jan Gulliksen,et al.  Using Online Reviews as Narratives to Evoke Designer's Empathy , 2015, INTERACT.

[13]  Geraldine Fitzpatrick,et al.  The Development of Assistive Systems to Support Older People: Issues that Affect Success in Practice , 2017 .

[14]  Geoffrey A. Moore Crossing the chasm : marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers , 1999 .

[15]  S. Aljunid,et al.  Estimating clinical and economic burden of pneumococcal meningitis in Malaysia using Casemix data , 2012, BMC Health Services Research.

[16]  E. Seydel,et al.  The Contribution of Teleconsultation and Videoconferencing to Diabetes Care: A Systematic Literature Review , 2007, Journal of medical Internet research.

[17]  Kenneth J. Turner,et al.  Advances in telecare over the past 10 years , 2013 .

[18]  Peter Gregor,et al.  Designing for dynamic diversity: making accessible interfaces for older people , 2001, WUAUC'01.

[19]  M. Mort,et al.  Ageing with telecare: care or coercion in austerity? , 2013, Sociology of health & illness.

[20]  Geraldine Fitzpatrick,et al.  The development of a sensor-based system for older people: a case study , 2013, BCS HCI.

[21]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  The one-minute risk assessment tool , 2004, CACM.

[22]  P. Bower,et al.  Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Lynne Baillie,et al.  Senior designers: empowering seniors to design enjoyable falls rehabilitation tools , 2012, CHI.

[24]  Claudia Pagliari,et al.  Design and Evaluation in eHealth: Challenges and Implications for an Interdisciplinary Field , 2007, Journal of medical Internet research.