Development and Validation of an Interactive Internet Platform for Older People: The Healthy Ageing Through Internet Counselling in the Elderly Study

Abstract

When carefully designed, an interactive Internet platform is acceptable and feasible for use by older people with basic computer skills. To improve acceptability by older people, we recommend involving the end users in the process of development, to personalize the platform and to combine the application with human support. The interactive HATICE platform will be tested for efficacy in a multinational randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN48151589).

Healthy ageing through internet counselling in the elderly (HATICE): a multinational, randomised controlled trial

“…With 80% power, a 0·05 two-sided significance level, accounting for an estimated 14% attrition, an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0·25 for an anticipated 17·5% participants in couples, and an effect size of 0·06 the required sample size was estimated to be 2534 participants. 17 We decided on this target effect size because the difference on this composite outcome after 2 years between those who did and did not develop cardiovascular disease or dementia during a mean of 6·7 years of follow-up in the preDIVA trial was 0·06 (appendix pp 6-8). The statistical analysis plan was completed and published at ISRCTN on June 27, 2017 (appendix pp 6-8) before unblinding of the data on March 31, 2018.…”

“…The intervention platform was carefully designed using an iterative process involving the end users throughout development, leading to good usability, as confirmed in a Intervention Control qualitative substudy. 17,18,25 Our pragmatic multicomponent approach makes it difficult to disentangle effects of different components of the intervention, particularly to differentiate between the effects of the application itself and of the coach. A limitation of our primary outcome is the difficulty to establish its clinical relevance.…”

“…15 The platform was designed to facilitate selfmanagement of cardiovascular risk factors by defining health priorities, goal setting, monitoring progress with (graphical) feed back, and a combination of automated and personal feedback from the coach, based on Bandura's social-cognitive theory of self-management and behavioural change, and was described in detail elsewhere (appendix p 4). 16,17 After developing a conceptual framework, the platform was designed in an iterative process engaging end users (target population and nurses), which included an 8-week pilot study with 41 participants (appendix p 4). The main components of the intervention are described in the panel.…”

E-health for active ageing; A systematic review

“…[22], [24], [23], [25], [26], [12], [27], [28], [14], [29], [21], [30] Ethics Ethical considerations of technologies. [31] Gaming Uses computer games, serious games and associated technologies.…”

A multimodal conversational coach for active ageing based on sentient computing and m‐health

“…In addition to applications that target physical activity, the kinds of applications designed for active ageing cover different types of interventions: information systems for clinical use (Bourret & Bousquet, 2013), coaching of the elderly person (Jongstra et al, 2017;Richard et al, 2016;Tiedemann et al, 2016), cognitive behavior therapy (Preschl, Wagner, Forstmeier, & Maercker, 2011), cognitive training (Gates et al, 2016;Reijnders, Geusgens, Ponds, & van Boxtel, 2017;Santos, Reis, & Barroso, 2013), communication tools between health-care professionals and patients or carers (Henriquez-Camacho, Losa, Miranda, & Cheyne, 2014;Preschl et al, 2011), decision support systems (Bourret & Bousquet, 2013), education of patients (Henriquez-Camacho et al, 2014;Lattanzio et al, 2014), applications that target ethical considerations of technologies (Karki, Savel, Sallinen, & Kuusinen, 2013), computer and serious games (Gates et al, 2016;Santos et al, 2013), information systems and technology development (Bourret & Bousquet, 2013;Ferreira, Sayago, & Blat, 2017;Karki et al, 2013), applications focused on the management and coordination of e-health interventions (Lattanzio et al, 2014), applications targeting rehabilitation (Kaufman, 2012), systems that target social inclusion and participation (Ferreira et al, 2017;Henriquez-Camacho et al, 2014), remote care technologies (Jongstra et al, 2017;Knowles, Skeath, Jia, Najafi, Thayer, & Sternberg, 2016), telehealth applications to help support self-management (Henriquez-Camacho et al, 2014;Lee, Han, & Jo, 2017;Tiedemann et al, 2016), and telemedicine systems for direct intervention of the clinician (Keijser et al, 2016;Lattanzio et al, 2014).…”