Cited by 40Technology Use by Older AdultsEthics in Clinical ResearchAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Ethics in evaluating a sociotechnical intervention with socially isolated older adults

Open access
Waycott, Jenny, Morgans, Amee, Pedell, Sonja, Ozanne, Elizabeth, Vetere, Frank, Kulik, Lars, Davis, Hilary·2015·Qualitative Health Research

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to consider how ethical principles can inform the effective design and implementation of technology-based interventions that aim to promote the well-being of socially isolated older adults. We evaluated a new iPad application with small groups of older adults. In this article, we reflect on the ethical issues encountered at each stage of the research process. Drawing on the ethical principles of beneficence, research merit and integrity, justice, and respect, we identify key issues to consider in the future design and implementation of social isolation interventions that use new technologies. Key issues include (a) providing sufficient support to facilitate ongoing social interactions, (b) managing older adults' expectations, (c) providing encouragement without coercion, and (d) responding to individual needs. We conclude that it is important to report on ethical challenges incurred when evaluating social isolation interventions to inform future research in this important area.

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 · 10.1177/1049732315570136

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Technology-based community interventions, including telephone, Internet, and iPad/smartphone applications, have shown promising results in reducing social isolation among older adults.

    “There is a growing focus on technology-based community interventions, including those offered by telephone, Internet, and iPad/smartphone applications, with findings demonstrating promising results in reducing social isolation among older adults (43–45).”

    From Telephone-based group mental health support for older adults in central Canada: pilot acceptability and effectiveness findings of The CONNECT Program (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) describes growing interest in technologies for socially isolated older adults, and Beneficence (page unavailable) reports that the study’s iPad application facilitated social engagement. The paper does not report promising reductions in social isolation across telephone, Internet, and smartphone interventions; it also says sustained benefits from its own intervention were difficult to ensure. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Waycott, J., Morgans, A., Pedell, S., Ozanne, E., Vetere, F., Kulik, L. & Davis, H. (2015). Ethics in Evaluating a Sociotechnical Intervention With Socially Isolated Older Adults. Qualitative Health Research, 25 (11), pp.1518-1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315570136. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/54842

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waycott, J., Morgans, A., Pedell, S., Ozanne, E., Vetere, F., Kulik, L., & Davis, H.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Benetas Aged Care Services, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Waycott, Jenny
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Published
2015-02-02
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
1518-1528
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
OpenAlex
W2151613078
Cited by
40
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3
FWCI
13.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (LP120100022)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
research ethics, social isolation, older adults, technology-based interventions, iPad apps, well-being, beneficence, justice, respect for persons, research integrity, social interaction support
MeSH terms
Aged, Home Care Services, Humans, Social Isolation, Social Support, Frail Elderly, Beneficence, Ethics, Research, Computers, Handheld, Qualitative Research, Mobility Limitation, Social Participation, Social Media, Mobile Applications

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