Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T01:43:59.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Keeping In Touch Everyday (KITE) project: developing assistive technologies with people with dementia and their carers to promote independence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Louise Robinson ,
Katie Brittain ,
Stephen Lindsay ,
Dan Jackson  and
Patrick Olivier
Louise Robinson*
Affiliation:
Institutes of Health and Society/Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Katie Brittain
Affiliation:
Institutes of Health and Society/Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Stephen Lindsay
Affiliation:
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Dan Jackson
Affiliation:
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Patrick Olivier
Affiliation:
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Louise Robinson, Institutes of Health and Society/Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, 21 Claremont Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AA, U.K. Phone: +44 (0)191 222 7013; Fax: +44 (0)191 222 6043 Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The role of technology to facilitate independent living for people with dementia is not fully realized, with initial attempts (e.g. tracking devices) being considered unacceptable from a practical and ethical perspective. The aim of this study is to create acceptable and effective prototype technologies to facilitate independence for people with dementia through a user-centered design process involving them and their carers.

Method: The study comprised a three-stage participatory design process: scoping stage (five focus groups, 10 people with dementia and 11 carers); participatory design stage (five workshops, 22 participants) and prototype development stage (four meetings with two people with dementia and one carer). Focus groups and workshops were digitally recorded, fully transcribed and subjected to constant comparative analysis.

Results: People with mild to moderate dementia enjoy a variety of activities both on their own and with their families; however, concerns included getting lost, a loss of confidence with curtailment of usual activities, and carer anxiety. Existing technologies (mobile phones) were used intermittently. Participants felt strongly that future devices should be disguised and be integrated easily into their daily routines. Suggested areas for functional improvement included two-way communications, flexibility of function as the illness progresses, and something to “guide” them home when out walking or driving. Attention should also be focused on minimizing the size, weight and visibility of devices to reduce stigmatization.

Conclusion: Prototypes for two devices (armband and electronic notepad) were developed. The study showed that involving people with dementia in the process of participatory design is feasible and could lead to devices which are more acceptable and relevant to their needs.

Keywords

dementiaassistive technologiesautonomyparticipatory designolder people
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 494 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ABI Research (2008). Mobile Location Based Services Revenue to Reach $13.3 Billion Worldwide by 2013. Available at http://www.abiresearch.com/press/1097-Mobile+Location+Based+Services+Revenue+to+Reach+$13.3+Billion+Worldwide+by+2013; last accessed 7 August 2008.Google Scholar
Alzheimer's Society (2007). Dementia UK: The Full Report. London: Alzheimer's Society.Google Scholar
Audit Commission (2000). Fully Equipped: The Provision of Equipment Services to Older or Disabled People by the NHS and Social Services in England and Wales. London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
Audit Commission (2004). Assistive Technology Independence and Well Being. London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
Balestreri, L., Grossberg, A. and Grossberg, G. T. (2000). Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia as a risk factor for nursing home placement. International Psychogeriatrics, 12, 59–62.Google Scholar
Bamford, C. and Bruce, E. (2002). Successes and challenges in using focus groups with older people with dementia. In Wilkinson, H. (ed.), The Perspectives of People with Dementia. London: JKP.Google Scholar
Barbour, R. S. and Kitzinger, J. (1999). Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bloor, M., Frandland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. (eds.) (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Childs, T. H. C., Dalgarno, K. W. and McKay, A. (2006). Delivering mass-produced bespoke and appealing products. JSME International Journal, Series C, Mechanical Systems, Machine Elements and Manufacturing, 49, 2–10.Google Scholar
Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (2006). Living Well in Later Life. London: Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.Google Scholar
Department of Health. (2006a). Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Department of Health. (2006b). A New Ambition for Old Age: Next Steps in Implementing the National Service Framework. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Eisma, R., Dickinson, A., Goodman, J., Syme, A., Tiwari, L. and Newell, A. F. (2004). Early user involvement in the development of information technology-related products for older people. Universal Access in the Information Society, 3, 131–140.Google Scholar
Evans, N., Orpwood, R., Adlam, T., Chadd, J. and Self, D. (2007). Evaluation of an enabling smart flat for people with dementia. Journal of Dementia Care, 15, 33–36.Google Scholar
Faife, D. (2006). Assistive technology in dementia care: have we reached a consensus? Journal of Dementia Care, 14, 14–15.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparison methods of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregor, P., Newell, A. F. and Zajicek, M. (2002). Designing for dynamic diversity: interfaces for older people. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Assistive Technologies Archive: Proceedings of the Fifth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies. Edinburgh: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, E., Magnusson, L., Arvidsson, H., Claesson, A., Keady, J. and Nolan, M. (2007). Working together with persons with early stage dementia and their family members to design a user-friendly technology-based support service, Dementia, 6, 411–434.Google Scholar
Hawkey, K., Inkpen, K. M., Rockwood, K., McAllister, M. and Slonim, J. (2005). Requirements gathering with Alzheimer's patients and caregivers. In Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Baltimore, MD: ACM Press.Google Scholar
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2005). Science and Technology: First Report. London: House of Lords.Google Scholar
Kidd, P. and Parshall, M. (2000). Getting the focus and the group. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 293–308.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311, 299–302.Google Scholar
Macdonald, A. and Cooper, B. (2007). Long-term care and dementia services: an impending crisis. Age and Ageing, 36, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massimi, M., Baecker, R. and Wu, M. (2007). Using participatory activities with seniors to critique, build, and evaluate mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Tempe, AZ: ACM.Google Scholar
Newell, A. F. and Gregor, P. (2000). User sensitive inclusive design – in search of a new paradigm. ACM Conference on Universal Usability: Archive Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability. Arlington, VA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Orpwood, R., Gibbs, C., Adlam, T., Faulkner, R. and Meegahawatte, D. (2005). The design of smart homes for people with dementia – user-interface aspects, Universal Access in the Information Society, 4, 156–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, L. et al. (2006). A systematic literature review of the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent wandering in dementia and evaluation of the ethical implications and acceptability of their use. Health Technology Assessment, 10 (26), 124pp. doi: 10.3310/hta10260. Available at www.hta.ac.uk/project/134.asp.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. et al. (2007a). Balancing rights and risks – conflicting perspectives in the management of wandering in dementia. Health, Risk and Society, 9, 389–486.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. et al. (2007b). Effectiveness and acceptability of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce wandering in dementia: a systematic review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 9–22.Google Scholar
Savitch, N. and Zaphris, P. (2004). Learning from people with dementia to develop research methods for older people. Paper presented at the British HCI Conference: HCI and the Older Population, Leeds, U.K.Google Scholar
Wanless, D. (2006). Securing Good Care for Older People: Taking a Long Term View. London: King's Fund.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, H. (2002). Including people with dementia in research: methods and motivations. In Wilkinson, H.. (ed.), The Perspectives of People with Dementia. London: JKP.Google Scholar
Wu, M., Richards, B. and Baecker, R. (2004). Participatory design with individuals who have amnesia, Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices, Volume 1. Toronto, Ontario: ACM.Google Scholar
Wu, M., Baecker, R. and Richards, B. (2005). Participatory design of an orientation aid for amnesics, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Portland, Oregon: ACM.Google Scholar