SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Evaluating an interactive tool that reasons about quality of life to support life planning by older people.

Digit Health · 2024-01-01

DOI: 10.1177/20552076241255633PMID: 38854918

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectivesIn response to the lack of digital support for older people to plan their lives for quality of life, research was undertaken to co-design and then evaluate a new digital tool that combined interactive guidance for life planning with a computerised model of quality of life.MethodFirst, a workshop-based process for co-designing the SCAMPI tool with older people is reported. A first version of this tool was then evaluated over eight consecutive weeks by nine older people living in their own homes. Four of these people were living with Parkinson's disease, one with early-stage dementia, and four without any diagnosed chronic condition. Regular semi-structured interviews were undertaken with each individual older person and, where wanted, their life partner. A more in-depth exit interview was conducted at the end of the period of tool use. Themes arising from analyses of content from these interviews were combined with first-hand data collected from the tool's use to develop a description of how each older person used the tool over the 8 weeks.ResultsThe findings provided the first evidence that the co-designed tool, and in particular the computerised model, could offer some value to older people. Although some struggled to use the tool as it was designed, which led to limited uptake of the tool's suggestions, the older people reported factoring these suggestions into their longer-term planning, as health and/or circumstances might change.ConclusionsThe article contributes to the evolving discussion about how to deploy such digital technologies to support quality of life more effectively.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.