SynthesisThe Gerontologist2021
Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in The Gerontologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07475494 (Co-designing Culturally Responsive Nursing Care in Primary Healthcare), which is not on this map. Cited by 81 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Co-designing Culturally Responsive Nursing Care in Primary Healthcare: A Theory-Informed Double Diamond Intervention Development Study
Who cites it
81 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Co-designing interventions for patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Co-Designing Remote Patient Monitoring Technologies for Inpatients: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Nursing Staff's Perspectives of Care Robots for Assisted Living Facilities: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR aging · 2024Pooled it
- Co-designing care for multimorbidity: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Stakeholder preferences for attributes of digital health technologies to consider in health service funding.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Pooled it
- Codesign approaches involving older adults in the development of electronic healthcare tools: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Development of Guidelines for Implementing Digital Technology Into In-Home Aged Care: Mixed Methods Approach.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Person-Centered Technology for Older Adults: Benefits, Limitations, and Considerations in Design and Use.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026Article
- Developing Digital Platforms to Help Older Adults Stay Physically and Socially Active: Co-Design Study to Develop a Toolkit and Evaluate Its Impact.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Systematic Co-Design of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Innovations for Healthy Aging: A Demonstration Study Involving Socially Assistive Robots for Dementia Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Recognition of everyday activities using experiment data from wearable sensors: a deep learning-based framework.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Home Environmental Factors and Functional Ability as Determinants of Falls Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Implications for Primary Health Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Co-Designing a Community-Based Health Literacy Programme for Individuals With Prehypertension: An Application of Ophelia (Optimise Health Literacy and Access) Process.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Voice-Assisted Technology for People With Parkinson's Disease Experiencing Speech and Voice Difficulties: Co-Designing Solutions Using Design Thinking.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- Co-designing with frail nursing home residents to gamify a VR-based physio-cognitive intervention.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Illusory competence vs. real needs a cross-sectional study on the mismatch in Smart Senior Care (SSC) perceptions between nursing students and older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The role of co-design and co-creation methodologies in research supporting older adults living with HIV: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- State Variation in Smart Device Eligibility for Aging-in-Place Services: Recent Trends in Medicaid Section 1915(c) Waiver Coverage for Older Adults.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- AI-Augmented Co-Design in Healthcare: Log-Based Markers of Teamwork Behaviors and Collective Intelligence Outcomes.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multidimensional determinants of active and healthy aging trajectories: a position paper from the Age-It Research Program.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025Article
21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThere 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 was to evaluate the effects and experiences of co-designed technology that support older adults to age in place. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted a systematic review to (a) investigate the health and well-being outcomes of co-designed technology for older adults (≥60 years), (b) identify co-design approaches and contexts where they are applied, and (c) 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.
resultsWe 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, and 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 standardization of the definition of co-design would be helpful to researchers and designers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.