Making Complex Technologies Accessible Through Simple Controllability: Initial Results of a Feasibility Study
Source abstract
Abstract
Digital assistive technologies (DATs) present a significant opportunity to address the challenges of the healthcare system. However, they have not been designed for this purpose and are still in the process of further development. The objective of this study is to ascertain the extent to which a digital cross-device control and application platform for the simplified utilization of DATs alters the willingness of nurses to utilize them in the care process. An exploratory, longitudinal design with a mixed-methods approach was employed in this study. The co-creative design cycle was conducted in two long-term care facilities, with 25 caregivers participating in the form of testing for the platform’s prototypes across multiple iteration loops. The preliminary results indicate a high intention to use DAT, suggesting that the actual use of DAT through a control and application platform will be considerable. The overall trend demonstrates an increase in acceptance, willingness, and intention to use DAT among the participants. One proposed solution to the usability issues of DAT is to develop a platform with an interface for non-programmers to create individual interventions using everyday controls and a few intuitive steps. This could facilitate the sustainable implementation of DAT in healthcare.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Software Reliability and Analysis Research · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Health Service Research Working Group|Acute Care, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle (Saale), Germany
Department of Electrical, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, 06366 Köthen, Germany
Funding
Federal Ministry of Education and Research
References (94)
Show source-provided references
1. Storm, A., and Klie, T. (2017). Pflegereport 2017: Gutes Leben mit Demenz: Daten, Erfahrungen und Praxis, Medhochzwei Verlag GmbH.
2. Barmer, G.E.K. (2018). Pflegereport 2018, Medhochzwei Verlag GmbH.
3. Auswirkungen des Pflegepersonalmangels auf die intensivmedizinische Versorgungskapazität in Deutschland10.1007/s00063-018-0457-3 ↗
4. Statistisches Bundesamt (2024, September 16). Pflegevorausberechnung—Deutschland und Bundesländer: Berichtszeitraum 2022–2070. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsvorausberechnung/Publikationen/Downloads-Vorausberechnung/statistischer-bericht-pflegevorausberechnung-5124209229005.xlsx?__blob=publicationFile.
5. Statistisches Bundesamt (2024, September 16). Pflegekräftevorausberechnung: Berichtszeitraum 2024–2070. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsvorausberechnung/Publikationen/Downloads-Vorausberechnung/statistischer-bericht-pflegekraeftevorausberechnung-2070-5124210249005.xlsx?__blob=publicationFile.
6. Robotik in der Pflege: Ethikrat sieht großes Potenzial
7. Heinemann, S., and Matusiewicz, D. (2021). Rethink Healthcare: Krise als Chance, Medhochzwei.
8. Kuhlmey, A., Blüher, S., Nordheim, J., and Zöllick, J. (2019). Ressource oder Risiko—Wie professionell Pflegende den Einsatz digitaler Technik in der Pflege sehen. Pflege und Digitale Technik, Zentrum für Qualität in der Pflege (ZQP).
9. Jacobs, K., Kuhlmey, A., Greß, S., Klauber, J., and Schwinger, A. (2019). Mehr Personal in der Langzeitpflege—Aber Woher?, Springer.
10. Robotische Systeme zur pflegerischen Versorgung im häuslichen Umfeld: Ein Scoping Review10.1016/j.zefq.2018.09.003 ↗
11. World Health Organization (2024). Assistive Technology, World Health Organization. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology.
12. Tapus, A., André, E., Martin, J.-C., Ferland, F., and Ammi, M. (2015). Social Robots for Older Adults: Framework of Activities for Aging in Place with Robots. Social Robotics, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5 ↗
13. Krick, T., Huter, K., Seibert, K., Domhoff, D., and Wolf-Ostermann, K. (2020). Measuring the effectiveness of digital nursing technologies: Development of a comprehensive digital nursing technology outcome framework based on a scoping review. BMC Health Serv. Res., 20.10.1186/s12913-020-05106-8 ↗
14. Deutscher Ethikrat (2020). Robotik für Gute Pflege: Stellungnahme, Deutscher Ethikrat.
15. Hergesell, J., Maibaum, A., and Meister, M. (2020). Technikbildung für Pflegende als Teil der nationalen, japanischen Robotikstrategie. Eine L(e)ehrstelle. Genese und Folgen der Pflegerobotik: Die Konstitution eines Interdisziplinären Forschungsfeldes, Beltz Juventa. [1st ed.].
16. Roboter—Die neuen Kollegen im Team?10.5771/1611-5821-2023-2-38 ↗
17. Robotics in Healthcare: A Survey10.1007/s42979-023-02551-0 ↗
18. Kyrarini, M., Lygerakis, F., Rajavenkatanarayanan, A., Sevastopoulos, C., Nambiappan, H.R., Chaitanya, K.K., Babu, A.R., Mathew, J., and Makedon, F. (2021). A Survey of Robots in Healthcare. Technologies, 9.10.3390/technologies9010008 ↗
19. Babalola, G.T., Gaston, J.-M., Trombetta, J., and Tulk Jesso, S. (2024). A systematic review of collaborative robots for nurses: Where are we now, and where is the evidence?. Front. Robot. AI, 11.10.3389/frobt.2024.1398140 ↗
20. Nursing Staff’s Perspectives of Care Robots for Assisted Living Facilities: Systematic Literature Review10.2196/58629 ↗
21. Virtual Reality in Health Care: Bibliometric Analysis10.2196/32721 ↗
22. Robotische Systeme auf dem Weg in die Praxis10.1007/s41906-024-2665-1 ↗
23. Madi, M., Nielsen, S., Schweitzer, M., Siebert, M., Körner, D., Langensiepen, S., Stephan, A., and Meyer, G. (2024). Acceptance of a robotic system for nursing care: A cross-sectional survey with professional nurses, care recipients and relatives. BMC Nurs., 23.10.1186/s12912-024-01849-5 ↗
24. Merda, M., Schmidt, K., and Kähler, B. (2024, December 02). Pflege 4.0—Einsatz Moderner Technologien aus der Sicht Professionell Pflegender: Forschungsbericht. Available online: https://www.bgw-online.de/resource/blob/20346/3989e17a6bd235a1637fc16a4c71d84e/bgw09-14-002-pflege-4-0-einsatz-moderner-technologien-data.pdf.
25. Digitale Revolution—Survey zur Akzeptanz sozial assistiver Technologie in der Pflege
26. Kuhn, S., Ammann, D., Cichon, I., Ehlers, J., Guttormsen, S., Hülsken-Giesler, M., Kaap-Fröhlich, S., Kickbusch, I., Pelikan, J., and Reber, K. (2019). Wie Revolutioniert die Digitale Transformation die Bildung der Berufe im Gesundheitswesen?, Careum.
27. Technikaffinität und Fortbildungsinteresse von Auszubildenden der Pflegefachberufe: Eine Onlinebefragung10.1007/s16024-020-00337-5 ↗
28. Making co-creation a trustworthy methodology for closing the implementation gap between knowledge and action in health promotion: The Health CASCADE project10.1177/17579139221136718 ↗
29. Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science10.3152/147154300781782011 ↗
30. Kimmons, R., and Caskurlu, S. (2020). Design-Based Research. The Students’ Guide to Learning Design and Research, EdTech Books.10.59668/10 ↗
31. Schubert, C., and Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2019). Usability ist keine Eigenschaft von Technik. Berliner Schlüssel zur Techniksoziologie, Springer Fachmedien.10.1007/978-3-658-22257-4 ↗
32. Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health—A perspective on definition and distinctions10.17061/phrp3222211 ↗
33. Use of Human-Centered Design to Improve Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies in Low-Resource Communities: Protocol for Studies Applying a Framework to Assess Usability10.2196/14990 ↗
34. Aligning implementation and user-centered design strategies to enhance the impact of health services: Results from a concept mapping study10.1186/s43058-020-00020-w ↗
35. Bendel, O. (2018). Robotik in der Gesundheitsversorgung: Hoffnungen, Befürchtungen und Akzeptanz aus Sicht der Nutzerinnen und Nutzer. Pflegeroboter, Springer Gabler.10.1007/978-3-658-22698-5_11 ↗
36. Ragno, L., Borboni, A., Vannetti, F., Amici, C., and Cusano, N. (2023). Application of Social Robots in Healthcare: Review on Characteristics, Requirements, Technical Solutions. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23156820 ↗
37. Cocreative Development of Robotic Interaction Systems for Health Care: Scoping Review10.2196/58046 ↗
38. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361 ↗
39. Bendel, O. (2018). Robotik in der Pflege aus pflegewissenschaftlicher Perspektive. Pflegeroboter, Springer Gabler.10.1007/978-3-658-22698-5 ↗
40. Peters, D., Calvo, R.A., and Ryan, R.M. (2018). Designing for Motivation, Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience. Front. Psychol., 9.10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797 ↗
41. Farao, J., Malila, B., Conrad, N., Mutsvangwa, T., Rangaka, M.X., and Douglas, T.S. (2020). A user-centred design framework for mHealth. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0237910 ↗
42. The tyranny of methodologies in information systems research 110.1145/1278253.1278258 ↗
43. Design Science in Information Systems Research10.2307/25148625 ↗
44. A user-centered model for designing consumer mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps)10.1016/j.jbi.2016.02.002 ↗
45. Glaser, B.G., and Strauss, A.L. (2010). Grounded Theory: Strategien Qualitativer Forschung, Verlag Hans Huber. [3rd ed.]. Unveränderte Auflage.
46. Guidelines for Designing and Evaluating Feasibility Pilot Studies10.1097/MLR.0000000000001664 ↗
47. Eid, M., Gollwitzer, M., and Schmitt, M. (2013). Statistik und Forschungsmethoden: Lehrbuch. Mit Online-Materialien, Deutsche Erstausgabe, Beltz. [3rd ed.].
48. Wilcox, R.R. (2017). Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing, Academic Press. [4th ed.].10.1016/B978-0-12-804733-0.00001-9 ↗
49. Kirchmair, R. (2022). Welche qualitativen Forschungsmethoden gibt es. Qualitative Forschungsmethoden, Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-62761-7 ↗
50. Integrating Digital Assistive Technologies Into Care Processes: Mixed Methods Study10.2196/54083 ↗
51. Schewior-Popp, S., Sitzmann, F., and Ullrich, L. (2020). Thiemes Pflege: Das Lehrbuch für Pflegende in der Ausbildung, Thieme. [15th ed.].10.1055/b000000432 ↗
52. OpenAI (2024, December 11). Speech to Text: Learn How to Turn Audio into Text. Available online: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/speech-to-text.
53. OpenAI (2024, December 11). Models. Available online: https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gp.
54. OpenAI (2024, December 11). Text to Speech: Learn How to Turn Text into Lifelike Spoken Audio. Available online: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text-to-speech.
55. Double Robotics (2024, December 11). Double 3—Overview. Available online: https://www.doublerobotics.com/double3.html.
56. Google Developers (2024, December 11). Aufgabenanleitung zur Gestenerkennung. Available online: https://ai.google.dev/edge/mediapipe/solutions/vision/gesture_recognizer?hl=de.
57. Macenski, S. (2024, December 11). On Use of SLAM Toolbox, A Fresh(er) Look at Mapping and Localization for the Dynamic World. Available online: https://roscon.ros.org/2019/talks/roscon2019_slamtoolbox.pdf.10.36288/ROSCon2019-900903 ↗
58. SLAM Toolbox: SLAM for the dynamic world10.21105/joss.02783 ↗
59. Open Robotics (2024, December 11). Navigation. Available online: https://wiki.ros.org/navigation.
60. StereoLabs (2024, December 11). Body Tracking Overview. Available online: https://www.stereolabs.com/docs/body-tracking.
61. Ultralytics (2024, December 11). Schätzung der Pose. Available online: https://docs.ultralytics.com/de/tasks/pose/.
62. Insta360 (2024, December 11). Insta360 STUDIO: 360 Bearbeitungssoftware. Available online: https://www.insta360.com/de/download/app/studio2019.
63. Pioch, S. (2019). Entwickeln eines Prototyps. Digital Entrepreneurship, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.10.1007/978-3-658-24068-4_4 ↗
64. Bullinger, H.-J., and Scheer, A.-W. (2006). Markteinführung von Dienstleistungen—Vom Prototyp zum marktfähigen Produkt. Service Engineering, Springer.
65. A typology of mixed methods research designs10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3 ↗
66. Creswell, J.W., and Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage. [3rd ed.].
67. Jordan, P., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B., and McClelland, I.L. (1996). SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, Taylor & Francis.10.1201/9781498710411 ↗
68. Kothgassner, O.D., Felnhofer, A., Hauk, N., Kastenhofer, E., Gomm, J., and Kryspin-Exner, I. (2012). Technology Usage Inventory: Manual, ICARUS (Information- and Communication Technology Applications: Research on User-Oriented Solutions).
69. A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis10.1177/104973239300300403 ↗
70. The think aloud method: A guide to user interface design10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003 ↗
71. Buber, R., and Holzmüller, H.H. (2009). Das Fokusgruppeninterview. Qualitative Marktforschung, Gabler.10.1007/978-3-8349-9441-7 ↗
72. Lamnek, S. (2005). Gruppendiskussion: Theorie und Praxis, Beltz. [2nd ed.].
73. Bohnsack, R., Przyborski, A., and Schäffer, B. (2010). Das Gruppendiskussionsverfahren in der Forschungspraxis, Verlag Barbara Budrich. [2nd ed].10.2307/j.ctvddzp5w ↗
74. Schulz, M., Mack, B., and Renn, O. (2012). Konzeption und Durchführung von Fokusgruppen am Beispiel des BMBF-Projekts “Übergewicht und Adipositas bei Kindern, Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen als systematisches Risiko”. Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft: Von der Konzeption bis zur Auswertung, Springer.
75. Kuckartz, U., and Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz, Beltz Juventa. [6th ed.].
76. Sauro, J. (2011). A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks & Best Practices, Measuring Usability LLC.
77. Eichstädt, T., and Spieker, S. (2024). User Experience. 52 Stunden Informatik, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.10.1007/978-3-658-41838-0 ↗
78. Conceptions of Care: Altruism, Feminism, and Mature Care10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01197.x ↗
79. Lommatzsch, A., Llanque, B., Rosenberg, V.S., Tahir, S.A.M., Boyadzhiev, H.D., and Walny, M. (2023, January 9–11). Combining Information Retrieval and Large Language Models for a Chatbot that Generates Reliable, Natural-style Answers. Proceedings of the LWDA 2023 Workshops: BIA, DB, IR, KDML and WM, Marburg, Germany.
80. Schneider, P., Klettner, M., Simperl, E., and Matthes, F. (2024, December 11). A Comparative Analysis of Conversational Large Language Models in Knowledge-Based Text Generation. Available online: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.01495v1.
81. Lugaresi, C., Tang, J., Nash, H., McClanahan, C., Uboweja, E., Hays, M., Zhang, F., Chang, C.-L., Yong, M.G., and Lee, J. (2024, December 11). MediaPipe: A Framework for Perceiving and Processing Reality. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08172.
82. Kwon, O.-J., Kim, J., Jamil, S., Lee, J., and Ullah, F. (2024). Next-Gen Dynamic Hand Gesture Recognition: MediaPipe, Inception-v3 and LSTM-Based Enhanced Deep Learning Model. Electronics, 13.10.3390/electronics13163233 ↗
83. Du, Y., Feng, S., Cort, C.G., and Vela, P.A. (2024, December 11). Task-Driven SLAM Benchmarking. Available online: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.16573v1.
84. Schena, F. (2024). Development of an Automated Benchmark for the Analysis of Nav2 Controllers. [Ph.D. Thesis, Dissertation, Politecnico di Torino].
85. Perille, D., Truong, A., Xiao, X., and Stone, P. (2020, January 4–6). Benchmarking Metric Ground Navigation. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.10.1109/SSRR50563.2020.9292572 ↗
86. (2024, December 11). Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory et al. Robotic Operating System. Available online: https://www.ros.org.
87. Shotton, J., Fitzgibbon, A., Cook, M., Sharp, T., Finocchio, M., Moore, R., Kipman, A., and Blake, A. (2011, January 20–25). Real-time human pose recognition in parts from single depth images. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Colorado Springs, CO, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2011.5995316 ↗
88. Hutchison, D., Kanade, T., Kittler, J., Kleinberg, J.M., Mattern, F., Mitchell, J.C., Naor, M., Nierstrasz, O., Pandu Rangan, C., and Steffen, B. (2013). A Survey on Human Motion Analysis from Depth Data. Time-of-Flight and Depth Imaging. Sensors, Algorithms, and Applications, Springer.
89. Weighted X-Vectors for Robust Text-Independent Speaker Verification with Multiple Enrollment Utterances10.1007/s00034-021-01915-2 ↗
90. Leung, T.-Y., Samarakoon, L., and Lam, A.Y. (2019, January 14–18). Incorporating Prior Knowledge into Speaker Diarization and Linking for Identifying Common Speaker. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding Workshop (ASRU), Singapore.10.1109/ASRU46091.2019.9003731 ↗
91. Deep Speaker Recognition: Process, Progress, and Challenges10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3090109 ↗
92. Advancing nursing practice with artificial intelligence: Enhancing preparedness for the future10.1002/nop2.2070 ↗
93. Exploring the future of nursing: Insights from the ChatGPT model10.33546/bnj.2551 ↗
94. The use of care robots in aged care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.014 ↗