Negotiating contradictions: engaging disparate stakeholder demands in designing for active and healthy ageing

IF 1.7 Q2 REHABILITATION
D. Vaziri, David Unbehaun, Konstantin Aal, Irina Shklovski, R. Wieching, D. Schreiber, V. Wulf
{"title":"Negotiating contradictions: engaging disparate stakeholder demands in designing for active and healthy ageing","authors":"D. Vaziri, David Unbehaun, Konstantin Aal, Irina Shklovski, R. Wieching, D. Schreiber, V. Wulf","doi":"10.1108/JET-09-2018-0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nDesigning technologies for active and healthy ageing (AHA) requires a subtle understanding of end users (primary stakeholders) and healthcare professionals (secondary stakeholders). Often, their perspectives can be heterogeneous and contradictory. Identifying and negotiating them may be a challenge for designers. The purpose of this paper is to present our approach to understanding and negotiating contradictory stakeholder perspectives when designing AHA technologies for older adults.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe authors conducted an exploratory interview study with 15 community-dwelling older adults and 11 healthcare stakeholders, including doctors, health insurance agencies, policymakers and caregivers. The authors analyzed the interview material and negotiated contradictory perspectives.\n\n\nFindings\nThree major issues among stakeholders emerged: perspectives on AHA; perceived benefits and drawbacks of AHA technologies; and concerns about data privacy, control and trust.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe results show the heterogeneity and contradictions in stakeholder perspectives on AHA technologies and how these perspectives may be negotiated. This could help understand and facilitate long-term use of AHA technologies among older adults.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study alerts researchers to contradictory perspectives among older people and healthcare stakeholders and the importance of involving them in the design of AHA technologies.\n","PeriodicalId":42168,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Enabling Technologies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JET-09-2018-0045","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Enabling Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JET-09-2018-0045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Designing technologies for active and healthy ageing (AHA) requires a subtle understanding of end users (primary stakeholders) and healthcare professionals (secondary stakeholders). Often, their perspectives can be heterogeneous and contradictory. Identifying and negotiating them may be a challenge for designers. The purpose of this paper is to present our approach to understanding and negotiating contradictory stakeholder perspectives when designing AHA technologies for older adults. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted an exploratory interview study with 15 community-dwelling older adults and 11 healthcare stakeholders, including doctors, health insurance agencies, policymakers and caregivers. The authors analyzed the interview material and negotiated contradictory perspectives. Findings Three major issues among stakeholders emerged: perspectives on AHA; perceived benefits and drawbacks of AHA technologies; and concerns about data privacy, control and trust. Research limitations/implications The results show the heterogeneity and contradictions in stakeholder perspectives on AHA technologies and how these perspectives may be negotiated. This could help understand and facilitate long-term use of AHA technologies among older adults. Originality/value This study alerts researchers to contradictory perspectives among older people and healthcare stakeholders and the importance of involving them in the design of AHA technologies.
协商矛盾:让不同的利益相关者参与积极健康老龄化的设计
目的设计积极健康老龄化(AHA)技术需要对最终用户(主要利益相关者)和医疗保健专业人员(次要利益相关者)有一个微妙的理解。通常,他们的观点可能是不同的和矛盾的。对于设计师来说,识别和协商它们可能是一个挑战。本文的目的是提出我们的方法来理解和协商矛盾利益相关者的观点时,为老年人设计AHA技术。设计/方法/方法作者对15名社区居住的老年人和11名医疗保健利益相关者进行了探索性访谈研究,包括医生、医疗保险机构、政策制定者和护理人员。作者分析了访谈材料,并协商了矛盾的观点。利益相关者之间出现了三个主要问题:对AHA的看法;感知到的AHA技术的优点和缺点;以及对数据隐私、控制和信任的担忧。研究局限/启示研究结果显示了利益相关者对AHA技术观点的异质性和矛盾,以及这些观点如何协商。这有助于理解和促进老年人长期使用AHA技术。原创性/价值本研究提醒研究人员注意老年人和医疗保健利益相关者之间的矛盾观点,以及让他们参与AHA技术设计的重要性。
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
4.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Journal of Enabling Technologies (JET) seeks to provide a strong, insightful, international, and multi-disciplinary evidence-base in health, social care, and education. This focus is applied to how technologies can be enabling for children, young people and adults in varied and different aspects of their lives. The focus remains firmly on reporting innovations around how technologies are used and evaluated in practice, and the impact that they have on the people using them. In addition, the journal has a keen focus on drawing out practical implications for users and how/why technology may have a positive impact. This includes messages for users, practitioners, researchers, stakeholders and caregivers (in the broadest sense). The impact of research in this arena is vital and therefore we are committed to publishing work that helps draw this out; thus providing implications for practice. JET aims to raise awareness of available and developing technologies and their uses in health, social care and education for a wide and varied readership. The areas in which technologies can be enabling for the scope of JET include, but are not limited to: Communication and interaction, Learning, Independence and autonomy, Identity and culture, Safety, Health, Care and support, Wellbeing, Quality of life, Access to services.
×
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