User‐centered design to examine interaction of people with MCI or dementia with smartwatches: the SAMi intervention study framework
Abstract Background Assistive technologies show promising features to support people with cognitive impairment in daily life, e.g. mobile sensors for falls detection. But adoption of the rapidly evolving technologies is still limited in practice. We applied user‐centered design to investigate factor...
| Published in: | Alzheimer's & Dementia |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/alz.060553 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/alz.060553 |
| Summary: | Abstract Background Assistive technologies show promising features to support people with cognitive impairment in daily life, e.g. mobile sensors for falls detection. But adoption of the rapidly evolving technologies is still limited in practice. We applied user‐centered design to investigate factors contributing or hindering successful interventions on smartwatches. Methods We previously presented data from qualitative studies which analyzed values and needs for assistive technologies. In this subsequent study, we included patients with MCI and dementia. To prevent participants from feeling overwhelmed, we accompanied participants during a test intervention (0). Patients’ reactions to the following two tasks delivered by the smartwatch were observed remotely via cameras: A) drinking some water, as a task related to nursing and B) circling bells on a worksheet, as an occupational task. We also implemented two different intervention‐intensities: 1) regular and 2) intensive, with respect to vibration, alarm sounds and instructions. User feedback was obtained with questionnaires. Here, we present data of the feasibility analysis after completion of n = 20 patient, randomly assigned to intensity level 1 or 2 (n = 10/10). All patients were confronted with both tasks in the respective intensity, repeated up to three times in case of failure. Results As result of discussions in interdisciplinary working groups, we decided for a “wizard‐of‐oz setting”, which means controlling the smartwatch manually by a smartphone used as remote control. Systematic debriefing revealed obstacles in all study phases. On user side the problem of varying use of glasses and hearing aids couldn’t be overcome. On the technical side pairing problems (connection of phone and watch), automatically reduced brightness of smartwatch display and complicated maintenance of hardware were critical problems. Patients were committed to give feedback and felt not stressed due to the study. Still, filling in the questionnaires with Likert scales was ... |
|---|