Usability of an Adaptive Computer Assistant that Improves Self-care and Health Literacy of Older Adults

O. A. Blanson Henkemans; W. A. Rogers; A. D. Fisk; M. A. Neerincx; J. Lindenberg; C. A. P. G. van der Mast

doi:10.3414/ME9105

Methods of Information in Medicine, Table of Contents

Methods Inf Med 2008; 47(01): 82-88
DOI: 10.3414/ME9105

For Discussion

Schattauer GmbH

Usability of an Adaptive Computer Assistant that Improves Self-care and Health Literacy of Older Adults

O. A. Blanson Henkemans

¹Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

³TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Delft, The Netherlands

,

W. A. Rogers

²Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

,

A. D. Fisk

²Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

,

M. A. Neerincx

¹Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

³TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Delft, The Netherlands

,

J. Lindenberg

³TNO, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Delft, The Netherlands

,

C. A. P. G. van der Mast

¹Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: We developed an adaptive computer assistant for the supervision of diabetics’ self-care, to support limiting illness and need for acute treatment, and improve health literacy. This assistant monitors self-care activities logged in the patient’s electronic diary. Accordingly, it provides context-aware feedback. The objective was to evaluate whether older adults in general can make use of the computer assistant and to compare an adaptive computer assistant with a fixed one, concerning its usability and contribution to health literacy.

Methods: We conducted a laboratory experiment in the Georgia Tech Aware Home wherein 28 older adults participated in a usability evaluation of the computer assistant, while engaged in scenarios reflecting normal and health-critical situations. We evaluated the assistant on effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, and educational value. Finally, we studied the moderating effects of the subjects’ personal characteristics.

Results: Logging self-care tasks and receiving feedback from the computer assistant enhanced the subjects’ knowledge of diabetes. The adaptive assistant was more effective in dealing with normal and healthcritical situations, and, generally, it led to more time efficiency. Subjects’ personal characteristics had substantial effects on the effectiveness and efficiency of the two computer assistants.

Conclusions: Older adults were able to use the adaptive computer assistant. In addition, it had a positive effect on the development of health literacy. The assistant has the potential to support older diabetics’ self care while maintaining quality of life.

Keywords

Adaptive computer assistance - self-care - older adults - diabetes - usability evaluation - smart homes

Full Text

References

References
1 National Center for Health Statistics.. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). C1999-2002 (updated Oct 17, 2007; cited Oct 24, 2007). Available from: www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
2 Larizza C, Bellazzi R, Stefanelli M, Ferrari P, De Cata P, Gazzaruso C. et al. The M2DM Project: the experience of two Italian clinical sites with clinical evaluation of a multi-access service for the management of diabetes mellitus patients. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (01) 79-84.
3 Golin CE, DiMatteo MR, Leake B, Duan N, Gelberg L. A diabetes-specific measure of patient desire to participate in medical decision making. Diabetes Education 2001; 27 (06) 875-886.
4 Murray MD, Wu J, Tu W, Clark D, Weiner M, Morrow D, Brate D, Brater C. Health literacy predicts medication adherence. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2004; 75: 76.
5 Bhuyan KK. Health promotion through self-care and community participation: Elements of a proposed programme in the developing countries. BMC Public Health. 2004 4 (11).
6 Leventhal H, Cameron LD, Leventhal E, Ozakinci G. Do messages from your body, your friends, your doctor, or the media shape your health behavior?. In: Brock T, Green MC. editors. Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005. pp 195-233.
7 Blanson Henkemans OA, Neerincx MA, Lindenberg J. van der Mast CAPG. SuperAssist: Supervision of Patient Self-Care and Medical Adherence. In: Pikaar RN, Koningsveld EAP, Settels PKM. editors. Proceedings IEA2006 Congress. Maastricht: Elsevier; 2006
8 Brennan PF. Health Informatics and Community Health: Support for Patients as Collaborators in Care. Methods Inf Med 1999; 38 (04) 274-278.
9 Collste G, Shahsavar N, Gill H. A Decision Support System for Diabetes Care: Ethical Aspects. Methods Inf Med 1999; 38 (04) 313-316.
10 Rogers WA, Essa I, Fisk AD. Designing a technology coach. Ergonomics in Design 2007; 15: 17-23. .
11 Blanson Henkemans OA, Neerincx MA, Lindenberg J, van der Mast CAPG. SuperAssist: A User- Assistant Collaborative Environment for the supervision of medical instrument use at home. 1st International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare; 2006 Nov 29-Dec 1; Innsbruck, Austria: 2006
12 Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations 1995; 19: 41-47.
13 Mayhorn CB, Rogers WA, Fisk AD. Designing technology based on cognitive aging principles. In: Burdick DC, Kwon S. editors. Gerotechnology: Research and practice in technology and aging – A textbook and reference for multiple disciplines. NewYork, NY: Springer; 2004. pp 42-53.
14 Coyle C, Doherty G, Matthews M, Sharry J. Computer in talk-based mental health interventions. Interacting with Computers 2007; 19: 545-562.
15 Neerincx MA, Lindenberg J. Situated cognitive engineering for complex task environments. Natural Decision Making & Macrocognition. In press.
16 Streefkerk JW, van Esch-Bussemakers M, Neerincx MA. Context-Aware Notification for Mobile Police Officers. HCI International; 2007 July 22-27; Beijing, China: Springer; 2007
17 Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J. Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging 2006; 21 (02) 333-352.
18 Blanson Henkemans OA, Caine KE, Rogers WA, Fisk AD, Neerincx MA, de Ruyter B. Medical Monitoring for Independent Living: User-Centered Smart Home Technologies for Older Adults. In: Jordanova M, Lievens F. editors. Proceedings of Med-e-Tel 2007, 2007 Apr 18-20, Luxemburg, Luxemburg: 2007
19 McCarren M. American Diabetes Association. A Field Guide to Type 2 Diabetes. American Diabetes Association. 2004
20 Shipley WC. Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 1986
21 Wechsler D. Manual for Wechsler Memory Scaled – Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation; 1981
22 Rotter J. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs 1966; 80: 1-28.
23 Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASATLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N. editors. Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: North Holland Press; 1988. pp 139-183.
24 Looije R, Cnossen F, Neerincx MA. Incorporating guidelines for health assistance into a socially intelligent robot. Proceedings of 15th IEEE Ro- Man; 2006 Sep 6-8; University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield. UK: 2006
25 Sterns AA, Collins SC. Transforming the Personal Digital Assistant into a Health-Enhancing Technology. Cutler NE, Timmermann S. guest editors. Generations. Winter 2004/2005; 28 (4).