Mobiles for mobility: Participatory design of a ‘Happy walker’ that stimulates mobility among older people

Abstract

O r i g i n a l Mobiles for mobility: Participatory design of a 'Happy walker' that stimulates mobility among older peopleThe mobility of older adults is seen as a fundamental prerequisite for independent living and societal participation. We define mobility as going outdoors and travel to reach people and places, such as going for walks, visiting friends, shopping and attending cultural events. Being mobile leads to psychological benefits of going out, in particular reduction of feelings of loneliness and risk of depression 1 , exercise benefits to avoid muscle and bone deterioration 2 , inclusion in the local community to strengthen the social network and increase overall well-being 3 , and the empowering experience of knowing that one can (still) make a trip if one wanted to. These benefits promise to result in a better quality of life 1,4 , a better physical and psychological condition and societal cost reduction of long term care 5 .However, as people grow older their mobility decreases, due to changes in (i) demographic variables (e.g., changing traveling needs); (ii) physical and cognitive abilities (e.g., not being able to walk long distances, loss of memory or sense of orientation); and (iii) safety perception (feeling vulnerable and becoming more anxious to be on the street) 6,7 . Existing aids such as the Dial-a-Ride service 8 and products like (smart) walkers 9 , fall alarms 10 , hip protectors 11 , and electric mobility scooters 12 mainly focus on physical (walkers, mobility scooters) and incident support (fall alarms, alarm buttons). Although these products and services indeed support older adults to stay mobile, they do not sufficiently take into account demographic variables, cognitive abilities and safety perception. Moreover, current

The Importance of User Involvement: A Systematic Review of Involving Older Users in Technology Design

“…Beyond identifying needs, various papers also note that involving older people helped designers to better learn about older people’s lives. Many studies indicate that involving older people raised their awareness of older people’s daily life practices and activities, such as the importance of social connections ( Mehrrotra et al, 2016 ), common routines for housekeeping ( Verhoeven, Cremers, Schoone, & Dijk, 2016 ), medical practices ( Pater, Owens, Farmer, Mynatt, & Fain, 2017 ), and family visits ( Leong & Johnston, 2016 ). Relatedly, some studies report that the involvement of older people contributed to a better understanding of the lives of older people to the extent that it altered stereotypes.…”

“…On the other hand, we also found multiple studies that cast doubt on the positive impact of older adults’ involvement on acceptance. These studies report how older people indicate some positive attitudes to the developed design but provide suggestions for additional features (e.g., Gorkovenko et al, 2017 ; Guo et al, 2016 ; Verhoeven et al, 2016 ), or use it differently than originally intended ( Leong & Johnston, 2016 ; Eftring & Frennert, 2016 ; Nielsen et al, 2018 ). Other studies even identified instances of low acceptance.…”

The use of co-design in developing physical activity interventions for older adults: a scoping review

“…• Lack of literature on co-creation governance and frameworks [53] • Requiring participants to complete interventions before participating in co-design [68] • Complexity of data collection measures [36] • Combining appreciative action and reflection, or an integrated knowledge translation approach with normalization process theory [50,62] • User experience honeycomb model [43] • Participatory action research [51] • Photo-elicitation [69] • Training workshop and focus group facilitators in co-creation [52] • Fieldwork tasks [53] • Involving participants early, frequently, and throughout various stages [55,59] Logistics • Open-ended questions [60] • Novice facilitators [60] • Hypothetical scenarios [39,60] • Strategies to ensure members who belong to minority or socially disadvantaged groups are time intensive [57] • Role and workshop aim clarification [53,55,62] • Debrief sessions for facilitators [62] • Sharing workshop summaries with participants [43,52] • Utilizing community organizations or creating community advisory boards to assist with recruitment [51,57] • Formal committee name and constitution [56] Relationships • Time and resources required to build trust within community of interest [57] • Bias arises from a desire to please and maintain group dynamics [36,46] • Participatory Action Research approach may create a power differential [51] • Seniors require longer interviews [36] • Building group dynamics (meeting in person, allowing time to socialize, and demonstrating appreciation for participation) [38,55,59] Participation • Fatigue/loss of concentration…”

Fox Hunting Game: User evaluation of an exergame for community-dwelling older adults to support their mobility

“…• The Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS) has been applied in several studies in the Netherlands. It has proven to be a very useful instrument: it makes it possible to (1) describe more precisely the severity of the disablement caused by several chronic conditions, (2) establish changes in disablement over time, (3) differentiate more accurately between degrees of disability, and (4) improve the assessment of the need for professional care 30 . The GARS consists of 18 items and 5 response categories.…”

“…With increasing age, the possibility exists for a progressive decline in physical function what can lead to problems with regard to daily activities1. Especially among communitydwelling older adults, moving in-and outdoors is a fundamental prerequisite for taking care of daily activities, for independent living and social participation 2,3 . The frequency of going outdoors is a good indicator of functional and psychosocial functioning among community-dwelling older adults 4 .…”