"Functioning better is doing better": older adults' priorities for the evaluation of assistive technology.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Assistive Technology Pub Date : 2023-07-04 DOI:10.1080/10400435.2022.2113180
Katarzyna Kabacińska, Kim Vu, Mallorie Tam, Olivia Edwards, William C Miller, Julie M Robillard
{"title":"\"Functioning better is doing better\": older adults' priorities for the evaluation of assistive technology.","authors":"Katarzyna Kabacińska,&nbsp;Kim Vu,&nbsp;Mallorie Tam,&nbsp;Olivia Edwards,&nbsp;William C Miller,&nbsp;Julie M Robillard","doi":"10.1080/10400435.2022.2113180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the benefits of assistive technology (AT), barriers to technology adoption still exist and are uniquely affecting older populations. Improving technology adoption can be achieved by involving end-users in the development and evaluation process. However, existing AT evaluation tools rarely take into account older adults' experiences. The goal of this study was to fill this gap by determining which AT evaluation criteria are important for older adults. We conducted 4 nominal group meetings with 21 participants aged 50+ in Vancouver, Canada. In the meetings, participants generated AT evaluation criteria and organized them in the order of importance. The content from the meetings was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Final rankings were collated to reveal which criteria were the most important across the groups. We found that promotion of independence, affordability, ease of use and ethics are the most important AT evaluation criteria for older adults. Some aspects of ATs that older adults value, such as reliability, are not featured in AT evaluation tools. This study provides insight into older adults' priorities for AT evaluation criteria, and concerns that older adults have about AT use. The findings are supplemented with a comprehensive analysis of the group discussions that contextualizes the criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":51568,"journal":{"name":"Assistive Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2022.2113180","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Despite the benefits of assistive technology (AT), barriers to technology adoption still exist and are uniquely affecting older populations. Improving technology adoption can be achieved by involving end-users in the development and evaluation process. However, existing AT evaluation tools rarely take into account older adults' experiences. The goal of this study was to fill this gap by determining which AT evaluation criteria are important for older adults. We conducted 4 nominal group meetings with 21 participants aged 50+ in Vancouver, Canada. In the meetings, participants generated AT evaluation criteria and organized them in the order of importance. The content from the meetings was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Final rankings were collated to reveal which criteria were the most important across the groups. We found that promotion of independence, affordability, ease of use and ethics are the most important AT evaluation criteria for older adults. Some aspects of ATs that older adults value, such as reliability, are not featured in AT evaluation tools. This study provides insight into older adults' priorities for AT evaluation criteria, and concerns that older adults have about AT use. The findings are supplemented with a comprehensive analysis of the group discussions that contextualizes the criteria.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“更好的功能就是做得更好”:老年人评估辅助技术的优先事项。
尽管辅助技术(AT)有好处,但采用技术的障碍仍然存在,而且对老年人口的影响最大。通过让最终用户参与开发和评价过程,可以改进技术的采用。然而,现有的AT评估工具很少考虑到老年人的经历。本研究的目的是通过确定哪些AT评估标准对老年人重要来填补这一空白。我们在加拿大温哥华进行了4次名义上的小组会议,共有21名年龄在50岁以上的参与者。在会议中,参与者产生AT评价标准,并按重要性排序。使用定性内容分析对会议内容进行分析。最终的排名经过整理,以揭示各组中哪些标准最重要。我们发现,促进独立性、可负担性、易用性和道德是老年人最重要的AT评价标准。老年人重视的一些方面,如可靠性,在评估工具中没有体现。本研究提供了老年人对AT评估标准的优先级,以及老年人对AT使用的关注。研究结果补充了对小组讨论的综合分析,将标准置于背景下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assistive Technology
Assistive Technology REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Assistive Technology is an applied, scientific publication in the multi-disciplinary field of technology for people with disabilities. The journal"s purpose is to foster communication among individuals working in all aspects of the assistive technology arena including researchers, developers, clinicians, educators and consumers. The journal will consider papers from all assistive technology applications. Only original papers will be accepted. Technical notes describing preliminary techniques, procedures, or findings of original scientific research may also be submitted. Letters to the Editor are welcome. Books for review may be sent to authors or publisher.
期刊最新文献
Usability of an augmented reality bedtime routine application for autistic children. Rehabilitation professional and user evaluation of an integrated push-pull lever drive system for wheelchair mobility. Development and content validation of the Electronic Instrumental activities of daily living Satisfaction Assessment (EISA) outcome tool. Design and evaluation of the Afari: A three-wheeled mobility and balance support device for outdoor exercise. Intelligent assistive technology devices for persons with dementia: A scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1