Advertisement

Designing with and for Older People

  • Joe LangleyEmail author
  • Gemma Wheeler
  • Rebecca Partridge
  • Remi Bec
  • Dan Wolstenholme
  • Lise Sproson
Chapter
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 167)

Abstract

 Assistive technology (AT) can play a key role in helping older people live more independent and fulfilling lives for longer. However, several studies suggest that the current offerings of the AT market cater only to ‘functional’ needs, and do not fit within the complex realities of people’s lives, their personal preferences or the potential for user’s needs to change over time. As such, AT’s have a high rate of abandonment, arguably leading to increased risks to potential user’s health and safety. In other areas of healthcare, the involvement of patients or ‘users’ to ‘co-design’ products or services is being increasingly recognised as in important route to context-sensitive, person-centred and sustainable health innovation. This chapter will outline ways in which older adults can be involved in a ‘co-design’ process, with the belief that this involvement may address some of the issues with current AT. The authors propose 5 key principles of effective co-design and illustrate them with a case study from their practice. This is followed by a set of practical tips, as well as a discussion on how ‘doing’ and ‘making’ can play a key role in helping diverse stakeholder groups work together meaningfully. Finally, by contrasting the trends of the AT market with the development of commercial technology over the last 30 years, the authors also posit that a cross-generational co-design approach may be necessary in order to anticipate (or be responsive to) the emergent needs of future users of AT. It is hoped that the guidance and examples given here are merely the start of this conversation, and that practitioners from healthcare, design, academia and industry see the value of exploring these ideas further in their own contexts and communities.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    McCreadie, C., Tinker, A.: The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc. 25, 91–110 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spinelli, G., Micocci, M., Martin, W.: Objects of desire and of disgust: analysis and design of assistive technologies. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Design4Health Sheffield, 4th–6th Sept 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Renda, G., Jackson, S., Kuys, B., Whitfield, T.W.A.: The cutlery effect: do designed products for people with disabilities stigmatise them? Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 11(8), 661–667 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2015.1042077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bright, A.K., Coventry, L.: Assistive technology for older adults: psychological and socio- emotional design requirements. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (p. 9). ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pullin, G.: Design Meets Disability. MIT Press (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Procter, R., Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Rouncefield, M., Hinder, S.: The day-to-day co-production of ageing in place. Comput. Supp. Coop. Work (CSCW) 23, 245–267 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanders, E., Stappers, P.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1), 5–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simonsen, J., Robertson, T.: Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rice, M., Carmichael, A.: Factors facilitating or impeding older adults’ creative contributions in the collaborative design of a novel DTV-based application. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 12(5), (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0262-8
  10. 10.
    Branco, R.M., Quental, J., Ribeiro, Ó.: I’m Always Well When We are Together: Observation of Institutional Activities With People With Dementia and Its Implications for a Co-Design Research Project. Design4Health, Sheffield, UK, 13–16 July 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Procter, R., Hinder, S., Greenhalgh, T.: Co-production in practice: how people with assisted living needs can help design and evolve technologies and services. Implement. Sci. 10(75), (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolstenholme, D., Cobb, M., Bowen, S., Wright, P., Dearden, A.: Design-Led service improvement for older people. Australasian Med. J. 3(8), 465–470 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macdonald, A., Teal, G., Bamford, C., Moynihan, P.: Hospitalfoodie: an interprofessional case study of the redesign of the nutritional management and monitoring system for vulnerable older hospital patients. Qual. Primary Care 20, 169–177 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller, C., Hornung, D., Hamm, T., Wulf, V.: Practice-based design of a neighborhood portal: focusing on elderly tenants in a city quarter living lab. In: Proceedings of CHI 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–23 Apr 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lim, C., Frohlich, D., Ahmed, A.: The challenge of designing for diversity in older users. Gerontechnology 11(2), 297 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2012.11.02.483.00
  16. 16.
    Göllner, S., Lindenberg, J., Conradie, P., Le, J., Sametinger, F.: The enchanted neighborhood: using metaphorical devices for the inclusion of seniors in the co-designing process. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Universal Design, 30th Oct–3rd Nov (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xie, B., Druin, A., Fails, J., Massey, S., Golub, E., Franckel, S., Schneider, K.: Connecting generations: developing co-design methods for older adults and children. Behav. Inf. Technol. 31(4), 413–423 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barrett, J., Kirk, S.: Running focus groups with elderly and disabled elderly participants. Appl. Ergon. 31, 621–629 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patmore, C., Qureshi, H., Nicholas, E.: Consulting older community care clients about their services: some lessons for researchers and service managers. Res. Policy Plann. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 18(1), 4–11 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mitchell, R., Nørgaard, M.: Using DIY cartoon storyboard, live sketching and co-sketching to involve young and older users in participatory design. In: Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, 31 Oct–4 Nov, Delft, The Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bec, R., Langley, J., Wolstenholme, D.: Designing in health: developing shared knowledge through (un-)prototyping. Design4Health, Sheffield, UK, 4–7 Sept 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGee-Lennon, M., Smeaton, A., Brewster, S.: Designing home care reminder systems: lessons learned through co-design with older users. In: 6th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth) and Workshops (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dong, H., Clarkson, P.J., Cassim, J., Keates, S.: Critical user forums—an effective user research method for inclusive design. Des. J. 8(2), 49–59 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herriot, R.: Are inclusive designers designing inclusively? an analysis of 66 design cases. Des. J. 16(2), 138–158 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.2752/175630613X13584367984820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bush, P., ten Hompel, S.: An integrated craft and design approach for wearable orthoses. Des. Health 1(1), 86–104 (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Couvreur, L., Dejonghe, W., Detand, J., Goossens, R.: The role of subjective well-being in co-designing open-design assistive devices. Int. J. Des. 7(3), 57–70 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Partridge, R.: Exploring design mindsets: Developing design skills in adolescents with long-term conditions. Ph.D. Thesis (2019)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Arnstein, S.: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35(4), 216–224 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slay, J., Stephens, L.: Co-production in mental health: A literature review. Lond. New Econ. Found. (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kraff, H.: A tool for reflection—on participant diversity and changeability over time in participatory design. CoDesign 14(1), 60–73 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Langley, et al.: BMC Health Serv. Res. 18, 585 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3397-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nicol, E., Dunlop, M., Komninos, A., McGee-Lennon, M., Baillie, L., Eslambolchilar, P., Foong, P., Gault, P., Hakobyan, L., Lumsden, J., Velàsquez, F., Horcher, A.: 2nd workshop on designing with older adults: towards a complete methodology. In: Proceedings of MobileHCI ‘15 Adjunct, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24–27 Aug 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gaver, Bill, Bowers, John: Annotated portfolios. Interactions 19(4), 40 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chamberlain, P., Yoxall, A.: ‘Of Mice and Men’: the role of interactive exhibitions as research tools for inclusive design. Des. J. 15(1), 57–78 (2012)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Collerton, J., Jagger, C., Yadegarfar, M.E., Davies, K., Parker, S.G., Robinson, L., Kirkwood, T.B.L.: deconstructing complex multimorbidity in the very old: findings from the newcastle 85+ study. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, 15, Article ID 8745670 (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8745670
  37. 37.
    Dawe, M.: Desperately seeking simplicity: how young adults with cognitive disabilities and their families adopt assistive technologies. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1143–1152). ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Evans, S., Corley, M., Corrie, M., Costley, K., Donald, C.: Evaluating services in partnership with older people: exploring the role of ‘community researchers’. Work. Older People 15(1), 26–33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fernández, M.A., Delchevalerie, P., Van Herp, M.: Accuracy of MUAC in the detection of severe wasting with the new WHO growth standards. Pediatrics 126(1), 195–201 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grant A., Njiru, J., Okoth, E., et al.: Comparing performance of mothers using simplified mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) classification devices with an improved MUAC insertion tape in Isiolo County, Kenya. Arch Public Health. 76, 11. Published 22 Feb 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-018-0260-x
  41. 41.
    Levin, B.: Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Rev. Educ. 9(1), 15–26 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moss, G.: Research, policy and knowledge flows in education: what counts in knowledge mobilisation? Contemp. Soc. Sci. 8(3), 237–248 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2013.767466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Titchen, A., Harvey, G., Kitson, A., McCormack, B.: What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? J. Adv. Nurs. 47(1), 81–90 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sanders, E.: Scaffolds for building everyday creativity. In: Frascara, Jorge (ed.) Design for Effective Communications: Creating Contexts for Clarity and Meaning. Allworth Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Salive, M.E.: Multimorbidity in older adults. Epidemiol. Rev. 35(1), 75–83 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Almqvist, F.: The fuzzy front-end and the forgotten back-end: User involvement in later development phases. Des. J. 20(1), 2524–2533 (2017)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Barnett, K., Mercer, S.W., Norbury, M., Watt, G., Wyke, S., Guthrie, B.: Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 380(9836), 37–43 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joe Langley
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Gemma Wheeler
    • 1
  • Rebecca Partridge
    • 1
  • Remi Bec
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dan Wolstenholme
    • 2
    • 1
  • Lise Sproson
    • 3
  1. 1.Lab4LivingSheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK
  2. 2.NIHR CLAHRC YHSheffieldUK
  3. 3.NIHR Devices for Dignity MICSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations