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.
“I remember as a child we used to have one family computer on a special table in our lounge and we used it for specific tasks, deliberately having to disconnect the phone line to plug the computer into the internet, waiting for it to make a dialup connection and then having to be so patient with it to browse the web…these were mini events that sometimes brought the whole family together or, at the very least, required substantial, dedicated effort and time from (usually) my father.”
Memory of Rebecca Partridge
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
For the purposes of this chapter, we will use Sanders and Stappers’ definition of ‘co-design’ as referring to ‘the creativity of designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process’ [7].
- 2.
Terms such as co-design, co-production, co-creation, and so on, have emerged from the field of Participatory Design which has its roots in the Scandinavian Workplace Democracy Movement of the 1970s—see Simonsen and Robertson [8] for a detailed history.
- 3.
Here the term is used to denote, roughly, the general adult population over the age of 55. It does not refer to adults with any specific health condition, although some researchers provide excellent guidance on involving older adults with dementia—see Branco et al. [10].
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
A discussion of this is available from Langley et al. [31].
Bibliography
McCreadie, C., Tinker, A.: The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc. 25, 91–110 (2005)
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)
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/10.3109/17483107.2015.1042077
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)
Pullin, G.: Design Meets Disability. MIT Press (2009)
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)
Sanders, E., Stappers, P.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1), 5–18 (2008)
Simonsen, J., Robertson, T.: Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge, New York (2013)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Barrett, J., Kirk, S.: Running focus groups with elderly and disabled elderly participants. Appl. Ergon. 31, 621–629 (2000)
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)
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)
Bec, R., Langley, J., Wolstenholme, D.: Designing in health: developing shared knowledge through (un-)prototyping. Design4Health, Sheffield, UK, 4–7 Sept 2018 (2018)
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)
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)
Herriot, R.: Are inclusive designers designing inclusively? an analysis of 66 design cases. Des. J. 16(2), 138–158 (2013). https://doi.org/10.2752/175630613X13584367984820
Bush, P., ten Hompel, S.: An integrated craft and design approach for wearable orthoses. Des. Health 1(1), 86–104 (2017)
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)
Partridge, R.: Exploring design mindsets: Developing design skills in adolescents with long-term conditions. Ph.D. Thesis (2019)
Arnstein, S.: A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35(4), 216–224 (1969)
Slay, J., Stephens, L.: Co-production in mental health: A literature review. Lond. New Econ. Found. (2013)
Kraff, H.: A tool for reflection—on participant diversity and changeability over time in participatory design. CoDesign 14(1), 60–73 (2018)
Langley, et al.: BMC Health Serv. Res. 18, 585 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3397-y
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)
Hutchins, E.: Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press (1995)
Gaver, Bill, Bowers, John: Annotated portfolios. Interactions 19(4), 40 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212889
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)
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
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)
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)
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.2009-2175
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
Levin, B.: Mobilising research knowledge in education. London Rev. Educ. 9(1), 15–26 (2011)
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/10.1080/21582041.2013.767466
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)
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)
Salive, M.E.: Multimorbidity in older adults. Epidemiol. Rev. 35(1), 75–83 (2013)
Almqvist, F.: The fuzzy front-end and the forgotten back-end: User involvement in later development phases. Des. J. 20(1), 2524–2533 (2017)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Langley, J., Wheeler, G., Partridge, R., Bec, R., Wolstenholme, D., Sproson, L. (2020). Designing with and for Older People. In: Woodcock, A., Moody, L., McDonagh, D., Jain, A., Jain, L. (eds) Design of Assistive Technology for Ageing Populations. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol 167. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26292-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26292-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26291-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26292-1
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)