Methods to assess the effectiveness and acceptance of information and communication technology-based assistive technology for older adults: a scoping review.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Gabriella Tónay, Tamás Pilissy, András Tóth, Gábor Fazekas
{"title":"Methods to assess the effectiveness and acceptance of information and communication technology-based assistive technology for older adults: a scoping review.","authors":"Gabriella Tónay,&nbsp;Tamás Pilissy,&nbsp;András Tóth,&nbsp;Gábor Fazekas","doi":"10.1097/MRR.0000000000000571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An aging society is a growing challenge for families, social and rehabilitation service providers, and economies. Information and communication technology-based assistive technology can bolster the independence of older adults (65 years and above) and reduce their burden on caregivers. Currently, there is no unified methodology to assess the effectiveness and acceptance of these technologies. The present study undertakes a scoping review to (1) identify and characterize the methods for assessing the acceptability and usability of information and communication technology-based assistive technologies, (2) explore the advantages and disadvantages of the assessment methods, (3) determine the possibilities of combining the assessment methods and (4) define the most commonly used assessment method and set of outcome measures. The literature was searched in MEDLINE, Scopus, IEEE Cochrane and Web of Science bibliographic databases using the keywords defined by reviewers for articles in English published between 2011 and 2021. Of the 1696 matches, 31 met the inclusion criteria. It was found that a combination of different assessment methods was common in outcome measurements. Of the 31 studies, assessment methods were combined in 21 studies and multiple questionnaires were used in 11 studies. The most common technique of outcome measurement was the use of questionnaires (81%), conducting interviews (48%) and recording usability-performance measures (39%). The advantages and disadvantages of the assessment methods could not be determined in the selected studies in this scoping review.</p>","PeriodicalId":14301,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000571","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An aging society is a growing challenge for families, social and rehabilitation service providers, and economies. Information and communication technology-based assistive technology can bolster the independence of older adults (65 years and above) and reduce their burden on caregivers. Currently, there is no unified methodology to assess the effectiveness and acceptance of these technologies. The present study undertakes a scoping review to (1) identify and characterize the methods for assessing the acceptability and usability of information and communication technology-based assistive technologies, (2) explore the advantages and disadvantages of the assessment methods, (3) determine the possibilities of combining the assessment methods and (4) define the most commonly used assessment method and set of outcome measures. The literature was searched in MEDLINE, Scopus, IEEE Cochrane and Web of Science bibliographic databases using the keywords defined by reviewers for articles in English published between 2011 and 2021. Of the 1696 matches, 31 met the inclusion criteria. It was found that a combination of different assessment methods was common in outcome measurements. Of the 31 studies, assessment methods were combined in 21 studies and multiple questionnaires were used in 11 studies. The most common technique of outcome measurement was the use of questionnaires (81%), conducting interviews (48%) and recording usability-performance measures (39%). The advantages and disadvantages of the assessment methods could not be determined in the selected studies in this scoping review.

评估老年人基于信息和通信技术的辅助技术的有效性和接受度的方法:范围审查。
老龄化社会对家庭、社会和康复服务提供者以及经济都是一个日益严峻的挑战。基于信息和通信技术的辅助技术可以增强老年人(65岁及以上)的独立性,并减轻他们对照顾者的负担。目前,还没有统一的方法来评估这些技术的有效性和接受程度。本研究进行了范围审查,以(1)确定和描述评估基于信息和通信技术的辅助技术的可接受性和可用性的方法,(2)探索评估方法的优缺点,(3)确定组合评估方法的可能性,(4)定义最常用的评估方法和结果测量集。在MEDLINE、Scopus、IEEE Cochrane和Web of Science书目数据库中检索2011年至2021年间发表的英文文章的评审关键词。在1696场比赛中,有31场符合入选标准。研究发现,在结果测量中,不同评估方法的组合是常见的。31项研究中,有21项研究采用了综合评价方法,11项研究采用了多重问卷。最常见的结果测量技术是使用问卷调查(81%),进行访谈(48%)和记录可用性-性能测量(39%)。评估方法的优点和缺点无法在本范围综述中选定的研究中确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Rehabilitation Research is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary forum for the publication of research into functioning, disability and contextual factors experienced by persons of all ages in both developed and developing societies. The wealth of information offered makes the journal a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and administrators in such fields as rehabilitation medicine, outcome measurement nursing, social and vocational rehabilitation/case management, return to work, special education, social policy, social work and social welfare, sociology, psychology, psychiatry assistive technology and environmental factors/disability. Areas of interest include functioning and disablement throughout the life cycle; rehabilitation programmes for persons with physical, sensory, mental and developmental disabilities; measurement of functioning and disability; special education and vocational rehabilitation; equipment access and transportation; information technology; independent living; consumer, legal, economic and sociopolitical aspects of functioning, disability and contextual factors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信