Reviewhybrid2020

Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review

Jennifer Sumner · Lin Siew Chong · Anjali Bundele · Yee Wei Lim

200 citations0/0 files storedThe Gerontologist

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Technology Use by Older Adults Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility Innovative Human-Technology Interaction

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND 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 was to evaluate the effects and experiences of co-designed technology that support older adults to age in place. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We 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. 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, 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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 200 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2008Co-creation and the new landscapes of design 2014A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey 2014Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review 2016Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment?2016Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review 2015Experience-based Co-design and Healthcare Improvement: Realizing Participatory Design in the Public Sector

Cited by

2020How can technology support ageing in place in healthy older adults? A systematic review 2023Digital interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness in older adults: An evidence and gap map 2020Design Considerations for Mobile Health Applications Targeting Older Adults 2024The Role of Smart Homes in Providing Care for Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review from 2010 to 2023

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.