Toward guidelines for reporting assistive technology device outcomes

User interfaces for older adults to support social interaction through digital technology: a systematic review update

PURPOSE

This systematic review aims to update the results related to user interfaces and digital technologies that support the social interactions of older adults. Multiple innovative technological forms in existing research were evaluated to obtain evidence that digital technologies improve older adults' quality of life and social well-being.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search for relevant studies published in the last five years was conducted using the databases of Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, Scopus, Springer Link and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Of the 4959 records identified, a total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings were reviewed in three areas: social interaction of older adults supported by user interface, the digital technologies used in the user interface, and the effects of user interfaces on the social interactions of older adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should develop digital technologies and service models to enhance the quality of life of older adults. Long-term solutions to promote social interaction in older adults require more user interface support. Community connection-based user interfaces can support existing social relationships and develop new social circles for older adults.

The impact of assistive devices on community-dwelling older adults and their informal caregivers: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of assistive devices on the life satisfaction of (Research Question 1), and informal caregiving hours received by (Research Question 2), community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years).

METHODS

We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Scopus from database inception to March 2022. For each question, two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted and narratively synthesized the data, and assessed article quality and strength of evidence.

RESULTS

Of the 1391 citations screened, we found two articles pertaining to each question, for a total of four articles. In general, assistive device use was not associated with life satisfaction, while it was positively associated with informal caregiving hours. However, the risk of bias was serious across the two studies for Research Question 1, and the overall quality of evidence was "very low". The risk of bias was not serious across the two studies included in Research Question 2 and the overall quality of evidence was "low".

CONCLUSION

Due to the scarcity of studies, the limitations of existing studies (i.e., risk of bias), and the evidence being low or very low quality, we could not draw firm conclusions about the associations of interest. Additional research will produce a better understanding of the two relationships and provide further evidence to inform policy decisions regarding the provision and funding of assistive devices for community-dwelling older adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database of systematic reviews (identification number: CRD42021248929 ).

Towards improving the quality of assistive technology outcomes research

BACKGROUND

The Assistive Technology Device Outcomes Research (ATDOR) checklist was developed as a reporting guideline for researchers to enhance the quality of research in this field. The checklist contains 13 items that cover outcome domains unique to assistive technology devices (ATDs). The ATDOR was intended to be an adjunct to existing publication guidelines for outcomes research.

PURPOSE

The aim of this investigation was to examine the ability of the ATDOR checklist to identify strengths and weaknesses in ATD outcomes research publications that may not be detected using another publication guideline designed for outcomes research.

METHODS

Twenty original ATD outcome studies were scored using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, and the ATDOR in two evaluation rounds. In the first round, articles were scored using the TIDieR alone. In the second round, they were scored using the TIDieR and ATDOR together. The difference in percentage scores between the two evaluation rounds was examined using the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test for paired data.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the percentage scores between the two evaluation rounds (Wilcoxon statistic = 10, Z = -3.547, p<.000).

CONCLUSION

When used alongside the TIDieR, the ATDOR adds significant value to evaluations of reporting quality on assistive technology outcomes research. As this field continues to grow, researchers are invited to join in efforts to standardise reporting to promote healthier outcomes for ATD users.Implications for rehabilitationReporting guidelines that evaluate research studies enhance their reporting quality and promote healthier outcomes for ATD users.The Assistive Technology Device Outcomes Research (ATDOR) checklist was shown to be a useful tool for achieving a minimum standard of reporting in the field of assistive technology.As the field of assistive technology continues to explore different methodologies, ongoing efforts to develop and update reporting guidelines are necessary in order to capture the future needs of this research area.