CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58Technology Use by Older AdultsAging, Health, and DisabilitySocial Robot Interaction and HRI

The personalized reminder information and social management system (PRISM) trial: rationale, methods and baseline characteristics

Open access
Czaja, Sara J., Boot, Walter R., Charness, Neil, A. Rogers, Wendy, Sharit, Joseph, Fisk, Arthur D., Lee, Chin Chin, Nair, Sankaran N.·2015·Contemporary Clinical Trials
DOI 10.1016/j.cct.2014.11.004PMC PMC4314316
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Technology holds promise in terms of providing support to older adults. To date, there have been limited robust systematic efforts to evaluate the psychosocial benefits of technology for older people and identify factors that influence both the usability and uptake of technology systems. In response to these issues, we developed the Personal Reminder Information and Social Management System (PRISM), a software application designed for older adults to support social connectivity, memory, knowledge about topics, leisure activities and access to resources. This trail is evaluating the impact of access to the PRISM system on outcomes such as social isolation, social support and connectivity. This paper reports on the approach used to design the PRISM system, study design, methodology and baseline data for the trial. The trial is multi-site randomized field trial. PRISM is being compared to a Binder condition where participants received a binder that contained content similar to that found on PRISM. The sample includes 300 older adults, aged 65-98 years, who lived alone and at risk for being isolated. The primary outcome measures for the trial include indices of social isolation and support and well-being. Secondary outcomes measures include indices of computer proficiency, technology uptake and attitudes towards technology. Follow-up assessments occurred at 6 and 12 months post-randomization. The results of this study will yield important information about the potential value of technology for older adults. The study also demonstrates how a user-centered iterative design approach can be incorporated into the design and evaluation of an intervention protocol.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cct.2014.11.004

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The iterative UCD process begins with a needs assessment of both the end user and the content experts, including interviews and focus groups.

    “The iterative process begins with a needs assessment of both the end user and the content experts, including interviews and focus groups [19,23,44,47].”

    From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Methods section (The PRISM Condition; page unavailable) describes early surveys and focus groups with older adults to identify useful features and guide the initial design. The Introduction calls the process iterative and user-centered. Our copy does not describe an initial needs assessment of content experts or interviews as part of that initial design work. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Czaja SJ Boot WR Charness N Rogers WA Sharit K Fisk AD Nair SN submitted The Personalized Reminder Information and Social Management system (PRISM) Trial: challenges and Lessons Learned Clinical Trials PMC4314316 25460342
  2. Czaja SJ Sharit J 2012 Aging and skill acquisition: Designing training programs for older adults Boca Raton, FL CRC Press
  3. Salthouse TA 2010 Major issues in cognitive aging Oxford Oxford Univ Press
  4. Vimarlund V Olve N 2005 Economic analyses for ICT in elderly healthcare: questions and challenges Health Information Journal 11 4 309 321
  5. Wechsler D 1997 Wechsler Memory Scale 3rd Edition (WMS-III) New York The Psychological Corporation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Czaja, S. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., A. Rogers, W., Sharit, J., Fisk, A. D., Lee, C. C., & Nair, S. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Contemporary Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
40
Pages
35-46
ISSN
1551-7144 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cct.2014.11.004
PMC
PMC4314316
OpenAlex
W2029439589
Cited by
58
References
59
Citations by year
2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (NIA 3 PO1 AG017211)
  • National Institute on Aging (P01AG017211, 3 PO1 AG017211)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
older adults, social isolation, social support, social connectedness, technology for older people, user-centered design, technology adoption, computer proficiency, attitudes toward technology, well-being, living alone, memory support, leisure
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude to Computers, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Loneliness, Male, Memory, Quality of Life, Research Design, Self Care, Social Support, Software Design, Reminder Systems, Social Participation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review