Cited by 13Technology Use by Older AdultsInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

You can’t always get what you want: Streamlining stakeholder interests when designing technology-supported services for Active and Assisted Living

Open access
Oberschmidt, Kira, Grünloh, Christiane, Tunç, Sefora, van Velsen, Lex, Nijboer, Femke·2020·32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

Technological innovations have the potential to support the ageing society, by providing tools to improve quality of life, overall health, preserving independence and reducing loneliness. Acceptance of such innovations and long-term user engagement, however, depends highly on a proper fit between the technology and different kinds of stakeholders (including end-users). In this article, we report on a co-design process with different stakeholders and the negotiation that ensued after the elicitation of their wishes. A first session was held with older adults (n=11, aged 64 to 88 years), leading to nine challenges and opportunities that older adults face. In a second workshop service and technology providers (n=8) jointly ideated new service concepts. This process laid bare the discrepancies between project objectives, end-user challenges, service providers’ interests and researcher aims. This article outlines the difficulties when aligning stakeholder interests and suggests interest mapping and direct, iterative dialogue as a possible solution.

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 · 10.1145/3441000.3441040

Cites

81 of 81 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?

  • Organizing web-based usability testing, focus groups, or interviews is sometimes not only necessary, but can also have practical and even substantive advantages.

    “Organizing web-based usability testing, focus groups, or interviews is sometimes not only necessary, but they can also have practical and even substantive advantages [87].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Tommy Cederholm, ROCCO Barazzoni, Peter Austin, Peter Ballmer, GIANNI Biolo, Stephan C Bischof, C Compher, Isabel Correia, T Higashiguchi, and M Holst. 2017. ESPEN guidelines on defnitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clinical nutrition 36, 1 (2017), 49-64.
  2. Wojtek J Chodzko-Zajko, David N Proctor, Maria A Fiatarone Singh, Christo- pher T Minson, Claudio R Nigg, George J Salem, and James S Skinner. 2009. Exercise and physical activity for older adults. Medicine & science in sports & exercise 41, 7 (2009), 1510-1530.
  3. James Alexander Crewdson. 2016. The efect of loneliness in the elderly popula- tion: A review. Healthy Aging & Clinical Care in the Elderly 8 (2016), 1.
  4. Guilherme Eustaquio Furtado, Adriana Caldo, Tais Rieping, Edith Filaire, Eef Hogervorst, Ana Maria Botelho Teixeira, and Jose Pedro Ferreira. 2018. Physical frailty and cognitive status over-60 age populations: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics 78 (2018), 240-248.
  5. Jai Ganesh. 2004. E-health drivers, applications, challenges ahead and Strategies: a conceptual framework. Indian Journal of Medical Informatics 1, 1 (2004), 40-48.
  6. Erik Grönvall and Morten Kyng. 2013. On participatory design of home-based healthcare. Cognition, technology & work 15, 4 (2013), 389-401.
  7. Chao Guo, Ping He, Xinming Song, Gong Chen, and Xiaoying Zheng. 2018. Co- morbid mental disability among Chinese elderly with motor disability: Based on a nationwide survey. PloS one 13, 4 (2018).
  8. Madita Herpich, Thomas Rist, Andreas Seiderer, and Elisabeth André. 2017. To- wards a Gamifed Recommender System for the Elderly. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Digital Health. 211-215.
  9. Cun Li, Jun Hu, Bart Hengeveld, and Caroline Hummels. 2018. Slots-story: facilitate inter-generational life story sharing and preservation of the elderly. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 691-695.
  10. Susanne Maaß and Sandra Buchmüller. 2018. The crucial role of cultural probes in participatory design for and with older adults. i-com 17, 2 (2018), 119-135.
  11. Shwetambara Malwade, Shabbir Syed Abdul, Mohy Uddin, Aldilas Achmad Nurse- tyo, Luis Fernandez-Luque, Xinxin Katie Zhu, Liezel Cilliers, Chun-Por Wong, Panagiotis Bamidis, and Yu-Chuan Jack Li. 2018. Mobile and wearable technolo- gies in healthcare for the ageing population. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 161 (2018), 233-237.
  12. Krishnan Mysore, Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, Seungjun Ahn, and Tony Ma. 2019. Adversarial factors in multi-stakeholders' engagement of global-IT projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (2019).
  13. Gernot Rottermanner, Peter Judmaier, Shadja El Aeraky, Christian Gradl, and Sabine Sommer. 2018. Brelomate: a multiscreen communication and gaming platform to enhance social inclusion. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 928-931.
  14. Marija Tomšič, Barbara Domajnko, and Melita Zajc. 2018. The use of assistive technologies after stroke is debunking the myths about the elderly. Topics in stroke rehabilitation 25, 1 (2018), 28-36.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oberschmidt, K., Grünloh, C., Tunç, S., van Velsen, L., & Nijboer, F.
Affiliations
  • Roessingh Research and Development (NL)
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • Roessingh Research and Development Group and University of Twente
Venue
32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-12-02
Pages
649-660
OpenAlex
W3123136032
Cited by
12
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.20
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (OzCHI) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
Funders
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (857188)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
ambient assisted living, aging, older adults, co-design, stakeholder alignment, technology acceptance, user engagement, service design, loneliness

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