Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39432894›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Considerations When Designing Inclusive Digital Health Solutions for Older Adults Living With Frailty or Impairments.

Emilie Kauffeldt Wegener, Jenny M Bergschöld, Sverre Bergh, Ad van Berlo, Camilla Wong Schmidt, Afroditi Konidari, Lars Kayser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Emilie Kauffeldt WegenerDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, København K, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5129-8666
Jenny M BergschöldSINTEF, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-0967-3557
Sverre BerghInnlandet Hospital Trust, Ottestad, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9593-2967
Ad van BerloSmart Homes, Eindhoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0005-2411-3127
Camilla Wong SchmidtRegion Zealand, Holbæk, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0006-9361-4408
Afroditi KonidariTendertec, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2808-9804
Lars KayserDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0909-4088

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This viewpoint is written by authors with industrial, clinical, and academic backgrounds within medical and social sciences. The purpose is to share our experiences with digital health innovation from a sociotechnical perspective. The audience for the viewpoint is innovators, researchers, service designers, and project managers with little or some experience with theory-informed programs, complex interventions, and implementation or reorganization of sociotechnical ecosystems in health care. In digital health innovation projects, barriers related to traditions and cultures among researchers, clinicians, and industry may arise. Moreover, the final digital solutions may not always fit into existing digital ecosystems and may thus require a reorganization of how health care is provided at horizontal and vertical levels. The collaborating researchers have experience working in the field of digital health innovation for more than a decade, and we have developed and used 4 frameworks and models that are particularly relevant for theory-based complex interventions and can be used to inform inclusive co-design of digital health solutions with a sociotechnical perspective. These are (1) the 4E, a matrix to include, engage, empower, and emancipate marginalized people; (2) the GO-TO model, which can be used as a design navigator; (3) the Epital Care Model, to inform infrastructure; and (4) the Readiness and Enablement Index for Health Technology instrument, to stratify service users. From January 2021 to September 2024, we had the opportunity to apply these into practice in 4 living labs located in Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada as a part of a European Union-funded project on "Smart Inclusive Living Environments." The goal was to cocreate a digital solution and reorganize health care services to reduce social isolation, increase health literacy, and enhance well-being for older adults living with frailty or impairments. Based on our experiences with the Smart Inclusive Living Environments project, we have formed a proposal for how design guidelines for sociotechnical innovation projects can be structured, backed up with reflections based on our experiences. With that, design guidelines should include three areas: (1) a common vocabulary including theories, frameworks, and models; (2) templates and protocols for methods, including detailed guidelines and templates for the planned development of the technologies; and (3) methods to implement and provide education and training of service users and informal and formal caregivers. In the design process, we emphasize the importance of involving relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the created design guidelines to obtain preparedness in the organizations, as well as including putative service users to ensure the likelihood of adoption. Moreover, it is important to align expectations, have a common understanding of the applied frameworks and methods, and have access to the necessary resources to reach successful results.

Indexed as

FrailtyAgedDigital HealthFrail ElderlyHumansTelemedicineco-designdigital health servicesframeworksolder adultssociotechnical ecosystem

Identifiers

PMID39432894
PMCPMC11535789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.