A Comprehensive Scoping Review Protocol of Using Living Labs to Explore Needs and Solutions for Older Adults with Dementia

References

• Eurostat. People in the EU: Who are We and How Do We Live? Publications Office of the European Union; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Statistical Office F. Population data, 2018 Confédération Suisse; 2018. Available form: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population.gnpdetail.2019-0274.html. Accessed September 1, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Cavalli S. Vieillards à domicile, vieillards en pension: Une comparaison [Old people at home, old people in pensions: a comparison]. Suisse, Lausanne Ed. Réalités sociales; 2002. French.
   Google Scholar
• Höpflinger F, Bayer-Oglesby L, Zumbrunn A. Pflegebedürftigkeit und langzeitpflege im Alter: Aktualisierte Szenarien für di Schweiz. Berne: Observatoire Suisse de la Santé; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• FSO (Federal Statistical Office). Statistical Data on Switzerland. FSO; December, 2018. Available from: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home.html.
   Google Scholar
• Lapointe D, Guimont D. Open innovation practices adopted by private stakeholders: perspectives for living labs. Info. 2015;17(4):67–80. doi:10.1108/info-01-2015-0003
   Google Scholar
• Thoma-Lürken T, Lexis MAS, Bleijlevens MHC, Hamers JPH. Development and usability of a decision support app for nurses to facilitate aging in place of people with dementia. Appl Nurs Res. 2018;42:35–44. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2018.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 2016;8(4):50. doi:10.3390/fi8040050
   Google Scholar
• Bächle M, Daurer S, Judt A, Mettler T. Assistive technology for independent living with dementia: stylized facts and research gaps. Health Policy Technol. 2018;7(1):98–111. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2017.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergvall-Kareborn B, Hoist M, Stahlbrost A Concept design with a living lab approach. Paper presented at: System Sciences, 2009. HICSS’09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference; Big Island, HI, USA, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Coignard P, Joseph PA, Busnel M, Fattal C, Picard R, Laffont I. Living labs health and autonomy: what place for users and clinicians? The example of the French APPROCHE association. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2015;58:e57–e58. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2015.07.134
   Google Scholar
• Living Labs EN. European Network of Living Labs; E-U, ed. 2019. Brussels:ENoLL. Available from: https://enoll.org/newsroom/. Accessed January 13, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Sauer SC. User Innovativeness in Living Laboratories: Everyday User Improvisations with ICTs as a Source of Innovation. Universiteit Twente; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Malmberg K, Vaittinen I. Living Lab Methodology: Handbook. Brussels: European Network of Living Labs; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell WJ. Me++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Schuurman D, De Moor K, De Marez L, Evens T. A Living Lab research approach for mobile TV. Telemat Inform. 2011;28(4):271–282. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2010.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballon P, Schuurman D. Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. Info. 2015;4:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Dutilleul B, Birrer FAJ, Mensink W. Unpacking european living labs: analysing innovation’s social dimensions. Cent Eur J Public Policy. 2010;4(1):60–85.
   Google Scholar
• Kviselius NZ. Living labs as tools for open innovation. Commun Strategies. 2009;2(74):75–94.
   Google Scholar
• Tang T, Wu Z, Karhu K, Hämäläinen M, Ji Y. Internationally distributed living labs and digital ecosystems for fostering local innovations in everyday life. J Emerging Technol Web Intell. 2012;4(1):106–115. doi:10.4304/jetwi.4.1.106-115
   Google Scholar
• Grotenhuis FDJ. Living labs as service providers: from proliferation to coordination. Global Bus Organ Excellence. 2017;36(4):52–57. doi:10.1002/joe.21790
   Google Scholar
• Mulder I, Velthausz D, Kriens M. The living labs harmonization cube: communicating living lab’s essentials. Electron J Virtual Organ Netw. 2008;10:1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Bergvall-Kåreborn B, Ståhlbröst A. Living lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. Int J Innovation Reg Dev. 2009;1(4):356–370. doi:10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727
   Google Scholar
• Leminen S, Nystrom AG, Westerlund M. A typology of creative consumers in living labs. J Eng Technol Manage. 2015;37:6–20. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuurman D. Bridging the Gap Between Open and User Innovation?: Exploring the Value of Living Labs as a Means to Structure User Contribution and Manage Distributed Innovation. Ghent: Department of Communication Sciences, University of Ghent; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Bergvall-Kåreborn B, Eriksson CI, Ståhlbröst A, Svensson J. A milieu for innovation: defining living labs. ISPIM Innovation Symposium; 6 December 2009. New York, NY: USA; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Schaffers H, Turkama P. Living labs for cross-border systemic innovation. Technol Innovation Manage Rev. 2012;2:25–30. doi:10.22215/timreview/605
   Google Scholar
• Almirall E. Mapping living labs in the landscape of innovation methodologies. Technol Innovation Manage Rev. 2012;2(9):12–18. doi:10.22215/timreview/603
   Google Scholar
• Følstad A. Living Labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. Electron J Virtual Organ Netw. 2008;10:7.
   Google Scholar
• Westerlund M, Leminen S. Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: experiences from living labs. Technol Innovation Manage Rev. 2011;10:19–25. doi:10.22215/timreview/489
   Google Scholar
• Payne A, Storbacka K, Frow P, Knox S. Co-creating brands: diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. J Bus Res. 2009;62(3):379–389. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almirall E, Wareham J. Living labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. Electron J Virtual Organ Netw. 2008;10(3):21–46.
   Google Scholar
• Cleland B. Innovation of eParticipation strategies using living labs as intermediaries. Electron J e-Government. 2012;10(2):120–132.
   Google Scholar
• Lethin C, Rahm Hallberg I, Renom Guiteras A, et al. Prevalence of dementia diagnoses not otherwise specified in eight European countries: a cross-sectional cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):172. doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1174-3
   Google Scholar
• Fischler I. Using technology to implement the health quality Ontario quality standards for behavioural symptoms of dementia. Alzheimer’s Dementia. 2017;13(7):P1558. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.07.705
   Google Scholar
• Kales HC, Gitlin LN, Lyketsos CG. Assessment and management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. BMJ. 2015;350:h369. doi:10.1136/bmj.h369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray LC, Bernabei R, Berg K, et al. Standardizing assessment of elderly people in acute care: the interRAI acute care instrument. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(3):536–541. doi:10.1111/(ISSN)1532-5415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topo P. Technology studies to meet the needs of people with dementia and their caregivers: a literature review. J Appl Gerontol. 2009;28(1):5–37. doi:10.1177/0733464808324019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen-Mansfield J, Werner P, Reisberg B. Temporal order of cognitive and functional loss in a nursing home population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43(9):974–978. doi:10.1111/jgs.1995.43.issue-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boldy D, Grenade L, Lewin G, Karol E, Burton E. Older people’s decisions regarding ‘ageing in place’: a Western Australian case study. Australas J Ageing. 2011;30(3):136–142. doi:10.1111/ajag.2011.30.issue-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North MS, Fiske ST. Modern attitudes toward older adults in the aging world: a cross-cultural meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2015;141(5):993–1021. doi:10.1037/a0039469
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petonito G, Muschert GW. Silver alert: societal aging, dementia, and framing a social problem. In: Critical Gerontology Comes of Age. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group; 2018:146–162.
   Google Scholar
• Bourazeri A, Stumpf S Co-designing smart home technology with people with dementia or Parkinson’s disease. Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; 2018; Oslo, Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Meiland F, Innes A, Mountain G, et al. Technologies to support community-dwelling persons with dementia: a position paper on issues regarding development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;4(1):e1. doi:10.2196/rehab.6376
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van der Roest HG, Wenborn J, Pastink C, Droes RM, Orrell M. Assistive technology for memory support in dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:Cd009627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehra S, Visser B, Cila N, et al. Supporting older adults in exercising with a tablet: a usability study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2019;6(1):e11598. doi:10.2196/11598
   Google Scholar
• Gibson G, Brittain K, Robinson L. Working with assistive technologies and people living with dementia. In: Neves BB, Vetere F, editors. Ageing and Digital Technology: Designing and Evaluating Emerging Technologies for Older Adults. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019:213–227.
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen I, Zimmerman J, Binder T, Redström J, Wensveen S. Design Research Through Practice from the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Astell AJ, Ellis MP, Bernardi L, et al. Using a touch screen computer to support relationships between people with dementia and caregivers. Interact Comput. 2010;22(4):267–275. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leminen S, Westerlund M, Nyström AG. Living labs as open-innovation networks. Technol Innovation Manage Rev. 2012;2:6–11. doi:10.22215/timreview/602
   Google Scholar
• Payne A, Ballantyne D, Christopher M. A stakeholder approach to relationship marketing strategy the development and use of the “six markets” model. Eur J Mark. 2005;39(7–6):855–871. doi:10.1108/03090560510601806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Følstad A. Living Labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. Electron J Virtual Organ Netw. 2008;10(8):99–131.
   Google Scholar
• Lockwood C, dos Santos KB, Pap R. Practical Guidance for Knowledge Synthesis: Scoping Review Methods. Asian Nursing Research. 2019;13(5):287–294
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J. A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(4):529–546. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan R, Sterne J, Higgins J, Thayer K, Schunemann H, Rooney A. A new instrument to assess risk of bias in non-randomised studies of exposures (ROBINS-E): application to studies of environmental exposure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9.
   Google Scholar
• Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endnote [Computer Program]. Version 9.2. Philadelphia: Web of Science Group; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aguayo-Albasini JL, Flores-Pastor B, Soria-Aledo V. Sistema GRADE: clasificación de la calidad de la evidencia y graduación de la fuerza de la recomendación [GRADE system: classification of quality of evidence and strength of recommendation]. Cirugea Espanola. 2014;92(2):82–88. doi:10.1016/j.ciresp.2013.08.002 Spanish.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souto RQ, Khanassov V, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I, Pluye P. Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(1):500–501. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.08.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53. doi:10.1177/135581960501000110
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311–1316. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(1):47–53. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(1):2–10. doi:10.1111/jebm.12141
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Glenton C, Carlsen B, Lewin S, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci. 2018;13(Suppl 1):14. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0692-7
   Google Scholar
• Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuinness LA. Robvis: an R package and web application for visualising risk-of-bias assessments; 2019. Available from: https:www.eshacktron.org/software/robvis.html. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Bharucha AJ, Anand V, Forlizzi J, et al. Intelligent assistive technology applications to dementia care: current capabilities, limitations, and future challenges. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;17(2):88–104. doi:10.1097/JGP.0b013e318187dde5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar