Leonardo Angelini, Samira-Salomé Hüsler, Cora Pauli, Daniele Zaccaria
pp. 119 – 143, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-065-004)
Abstract
Assistive technologies play a crucial role in supporting the aging population. However, in Switzerland, efforts to promote such technologies are hindered by a fragmented landscape—shaped by linguistic diversity and regionally isolated initiatives—making it challenging to provide older adults with consistent, accessible, and trustworthy information at the national level. This article presents the participatory design of a Swiss hybrid (offline and online) platform for assistive technologies. The process was carried out in three language regions of Switzerland and allowed to identify the needs of the platform stakeholders and to outline the key characteristics that such a platform should encompass. Older adults highlighted the importance of trustworthy information. For this purpose, the proposed technologies should be validated through long-term testing conducted by platform members, under the scientific guidance of an established network of living labs. Furthermore, the platform should facilitate the physical exchange of information, beyond traditional online websites.
Keywords: assistive technology, aging, gerontechnology, participatory design, digital platform, Living Lab, knowledge dissemination.
References
1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Old-age dependency ratio, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/old-age-dependency-ratio.html?oecdcontrol-00b22b2429-var3=2050
2. Swiss Federal Statistical Office: Permanent resident population by age and dependency ratio, in 2024, https://www.bfs.admin.ch/content/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/effectif-change/age.html
3. Höpflinger F.: Wohnen und Wohnmobilität im Alter in Schroeter, K.R., Vogel, C., and Künemund, H. (eds.) Handbuch Soziologie des Alter(n)s. pp. 1–24. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09630-4
4. Schomakers E.-M., Ziefle M.: Privacy vs. Security: Trade-Offs in the Acceptance of Smart Technologies for Aging-in-Place. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39, pp. 1043–1058 (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2078463
5. Hees S.V., Horstman K., Jansen M., Ruwaard D.: Meanings of ‘lifecycle robust neighbourhoods’: constructing versus attaching to places. Ageing & Society, 38, pp. 1148–1173 (2018) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X16001483
6. Dijk H.M.V., Cramm J.M., Exel J.V., Nieboer A.P.: The ideal neighbourhood for ageing in place as perceived by frail and non-frail community-dwelling older people. Ageing & Society, 35, pp. 1771–1795 (2015) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X14000622
7. Horner B., Boldy D.P.: The benefit and burden of “ageing-in-place” in an aged care community. Aust. Health Review, 32, pp. 356–365 (2008) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/ah080356
8. World Health Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund: Global Report on Assistive Technology.
9. Mishra S., Laplante-Lévesque A., Barbareschi G., Witte L.D., Abdi S., Spann A., Khasnabis C., Allen M.: Assistive technology needs, access and coverage, and related barriers and facilitators in the WHO European region: a scoping review Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19, pp. 474–485 (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2099021
10. AGE-INT: Review Roadshow 2022: New Technologies – New Ways of Age(ing)? | AGE-INT, https://age-int.ch/en/roadshow2022
11. GGT Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gerontotechnik: GGT-Handbuch 2025, https://www.komfort-und-qualitaet.de/handbuch/
12. Testé et Approuvé par les Seniors – AFNOR Certification, https://cdn.afnor.org/download/produits/FR/LBH036.pdf
13. Biaggi S.: AgeTech, https://www.margerite.ch/agetech/
14. Willkommen im SimDec, https://simdec.ch/
15. Silver&Home – Technologies avec les seniors – Gérontopôle, https://www.silverhome.ch/
16. Living Labs, https://enoll.org/living-labs/
17. Pauls A., Koppelin F., Zeeb H.: The participation of hard-to-reach older people in the research and development process of health technologies from the perspective of multipliers—A qualitative analysis Front. Public Health, 12, (2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1334180
18. Mastelic J., Sahakian M., Bonazzi R.: How to keep a living lab alive? info, 17, pp. 12–25 (2015). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/info-01-2015-0012
19. Angelini L., Carrino S., Abou Khaled O., Riva-Mossman S., Mugellini E.: Senior Living Lab: An Ecological Approach to Foster Social Innovation in an Ageing Society. Future Internet, 8, pp. 50 (2016) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/fi8040050
20. Sanders E.B.-N., Stappers P.J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4, pp. 5–18 (2008) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
21. Steen M., Manschot M., De Koning N.: Benefits of Co-design in Service Design Projects. International Journal of Design, 5, (2011). Available: https://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/890/346
22. Lindsay S., Jackson D., Schofield G., Olivier P.: Engaging older people using participatory design. Proc. of CHI’12 . pp. 1199–1208. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208570
23. Doyle J., Murphy E., Gavin S., Pascale A., Deparis S., Tommasi P., Smith S., Hannigan C., Smitt M.S., Leeuwen C. van, Lastra J., Galvin M., McAleer P., Tompkins L., Jacobs A., Marques M.M., Maestro J.M., Boyle G., Dinsmore J.: A Digital Platform to Support Self-management of Multiple Chronic Conditions (ProACT): Findings in Relation to Engagement During a One-Year Proof-of-Concept Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23, pp. e22672 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/22672
24. Waycott J., Vetere F., Pedell S., Morgans A., Ozanne E., Kulik L.: Not For Me: Older Adults Choosing Not to Participate in a Social Isolation Intervention. Proc. of CHI’16. pp. 745–757. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2016). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858458
25. Vines J., Pritchard G., Wright P., Olivier P., Brittain K.: An Age-Old Problem: Examining the Discourses of Ageing in HCI and Strategies for Future Research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 22, pp. 2:1-2:27 (2015). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2696867
26. Mannheim I., Schwartz E., Xi W., Buttigieg S.C., McDonnell-Naughton M., Wouters E.J.M., van Zaalen Y.: Inclusion of Older Adults in the Research and Design of Digital Technology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, pp. 3718 (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193718
27. Light A., Seravalli A.: The breakdown of the municipality as caring platform: lessons for co-design and co-learning in the age of platform capitalism CoDesign, 15, pp. 192–211 (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1631354
28. Lor M., Backonja U.: Visualizations Integrated Into Consumer Health Technologies Support Self-management of Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review. Comput Inform Nurs, 38, pp. 120–130 (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/cin.0000000000000583
29. Danemayer J., Holloway C., Cho Y., Berthouze N., Singh A., Bhot W., Dixon O., Grobelnik M., Shawe-Taylor J.: Seeking information about assistive technology: Exploring current practices, challenges, and the need for smarter systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 177, pp. 103078 (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103078
30. D’Cunha N.M., Isbel S., Goss J., Pezzullo L., Naumovski N., Gibson D.: Assistive technology, information asymmetry and the role of brokerage services: a scoping review. BMJ Open, 12, pp. e063938 (2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063938
31. Andrich R.: Towards a Global Information Network on Assistive Technology. 2020 International Conference on Assistive and Rehabilitation Technologies (iCareTech). pp. 1–4 (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/iCareTech49914.2020.00009
32. Rosales A., Fernández-Ardèvol M.: Ageism in the era of digital platforms Convergence, 26, pp. 1074–1087 (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520930905
33. Butt S.A., Suran S., Pappel I., Smærup M., Krimmer R., Draheim D.: A Digital Collaborative Platform for the Silver Economy: Functionalities Required by Stakeholders in a Multinational Baltic Sea Region Project. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract., 4, pp. 8:1-8:20 (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3592618
34. Misoch S., Lehmann S., Pauli C., Hämmerle V., Guggenbühl U., Konstantas D.: Living Lab 65+–Participatory testing of technical assistance systems in the natural home environment of senior citizens Presented at the ENoLL–European Network of Living Labs (Ed.), Research and Innovation Conference Proceedings (2018)
35. Mannheim I., Weiss D., van Zaalen Y., Wouters E.J.M.: An “ultimate partnership”: Older persons’ perspectives on age-stereotypes and intergenerational interaction in co-designing digital technologies. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 113, pp. 105050 (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2023.105050
36. Peine A., Neven L.: The co-constitution of ageing and technology – a model and agenda. Ageing & Society, 41, pp. 2845–2866 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000641
37. Bergvall-Kareborn B., Stahlbrost A.: Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1, pp. 356–370 (2009). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727
38. Karaseva V., Seffah A., Porras J.: A social-media-based living lab: an incubator for human-centric software engineering and innovation. Proc. of ICSSP’15. pp. 194–198. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2015). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2785592.2795367
39. Kviselius N.Z., Andersson P., Ozan H., Edenius M.: Living Labs as Tools for Open Innovation Communications & Strategies, 1, pp. 75–94 (2009)
40. Tang T., Wu Z., Hamalainen M., Ji Y.: From Web 2.0 to Living Lab: an Exploration of the Evolved Innovation Principles JETWI, 4, pp. 379–385 (2012). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jetwi.4.4.379-385
41. Følstad A.: Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review 99-131, (2008)
42. Schuurman D.: Chances and Challenges for Social Urban Living Labs in Urban Research Presented at the (2014)
43. Hämmerle V., Lehmann S., Pauli C., Misoch S.: LivingLab 65+-Co-creation with retirement and nursing homes. Proc. of OpenLivingLabDays’19. Co-creating innovation: Scaling-up from local to global (2019)
44. Bienvenue au senior-lab, http://senior-lab.ch/
45. Campisi D., Nyffeler N., Roulet Schwab D., Le Fort V., Bergeron L. eds: The benefits and challenges of co-creation with seniors: an interdisciplinary social innovation project designed to improve quality of life. Proc. of OpenLivingLabDays’18.
46. Angelini L., Caon M., Michielan E., Khaled O.A., Mugellini E.: Seniors’ perception of smart speakers: challenges and opportunities elicited in the Silver&Home Living Lab. Proc of IEA’21 (2021). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74605-6_17
47. Seifert A., Charness N.: Digital transformation of everyday lives of older Swiss adults: use of and attitudes toward current and future digital services Eur J Ageing, 19, pp. 729–739 (2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-021-00677-9
48. AGE-INT: AGE-INT | Roadshow, https://age-int.ch/en
49. Frick E., Tardini S., Cantoni L.: Lego Serious Play applications to enhance creativity in participatory design Creativity in business. research papers on knowledge, innovation and enterprise, 2, pp. 200–210 (2014)
50. Peek S.T.M., Wouters E.J.M., van Hoof J., Luijkx K.G., Boeije H.R., Vrijhoef H.J.M.: Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review Int J Med Inform, 83, pp. 235–248 (2014). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004
51. Neves B., Vetere F.: Ageing and Digital Technology: Designing and Evaluating Emerging Technologies for Older Adults, Springer, (2019)
52. Seifert A., Cotten S.R., Xie B.: A Double Burden of Exclusion? Digital and Social Exclusion of Older Adults in Times of COVID-19 The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76, pp. e99–e103 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa098
53. Tsai H.-Y.S., Shillair R., Cotten S.R.: Social Support and “Playing Around”: An Examination of How Older Adults Acquire Digital Literacy With Tablet Computers J Appl Gerontol, 36, pp. 29–55 (2017). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912404
54. Aner K.: Discussion paper on participation and participatory methods in gerontology Z Gerontol Geriat, 49, pp. 153–157 (2016). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-016-1098-x
55. Fischer B., Peine A., Östlund B.: The Importance of User Involvement: A Systematic Review of Involving Older Users in Technology Design The Gerontologist, 60, pp. e513–e523 (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz163
56. 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 Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, pp. 413–423 (2012). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449291003793793
57. Rheumaliga: Efficacité du programme de prévention des chutes « La sécurité au quotidien » 2016-2020, (2021). Available at: https://www.rheumaliga.ch/assets/img/Prevention-des-chutes-LSR_rapport-final.pdf