Towards the Senior Resident Social Interaction System: A Case Study of Interactive Gallery
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Related Work
2.1. Theoretical Framing and Anthropological Studies of Social Interaction among Older Adults
2.2. Applications of Older Adults’ Social Interaction and Interactive Installations
2.3. Designing Technology for Older Adults to Enhance Health
2.4. Summary
3. Design Intervention
3.1. The Current Social Interaction of Senior Residents
3.2. Interactive Gallery System
4. Field Study
4.1. Methods, Procedure, and Research Site
4.1.1. Research Methods
- Direct behavior observation was utilized to examine the potential behavior changes that the Interactive Gallery system could bring to the senior residents in the public space. Due to privacy requirements, video recording was not permitted on the research site. As a result, the researchers adopted direct behavior observation to capture the social interaction level of the senior residents. This method provided insight into when, where, how often a behavior occurred, and how long it lasted [35].
- Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the senior residents to understand their reflections on the use of the Interactive Gallery. The interviews were conducted in their own environments after the deployment, and the data analysis was deemed more realistic than laboratory data [36]. A pre-determined set of open-ended questions were used to prompt further discussion [37]. The analysis of the interview data provided valuable insight into the senior residents’ experiences with the system and their suggestions for future improvements.
4.1.2. Procedure
4.1.3. Research Site
4.1.4. Data Collection of Observation
4.1.5. Descriptive Data of Observation
4.2. Baseline Observation Results
4.3. Design Intervention
4.3.1. Deployment of the Interactive Gallery
4.3.2. Intervention Observation
4.3.3. Comparing Baseline and Intervention Observations of Senior Participants’ Behavior
4.3.4. Senior Residents’ Usage Frequency of Interactive Gallery
4.4. Post-Study Interview
4.4.1. Overall Impression
4.4.2. Interacting with Interactive Gallery
4.4.3. Content Preferences
4.4.4. Sharing of Interactive Gallery and Postcards
4.4.5. Suggestions for Improvements and Usability
5. Discussion
5.1. Senior Residents’ Social Interaction System, Behaviour Characteristics, and Technological Mastery Diversity
5.1.1. Social Interaction System and Behavior Characteristics of Senior Residents
5.1.2. Behavioral Characteristics of Senior Residents and their Impact on Social Interaction
5.2. Facilitating Social Interaction among Senior Residents within Nursing Home
5.2.1. Balancing Publicity and Individuality in a Senior Community Installation
5.2.2. Design Should Be Integrated into Their Daily Routines and Promote Their Existing Habits
5.3. Facilitating Social Interaction between Senior Residents and People from Local Communities
5.3.1. Encouraging and Guiding Senior Residents to Connect with People Outside of the Nursing Home
5.3.2. Separating Tangibility from Communication
5.3.3. Senior Residents Act as Content Producers, and the Outside People Act as Memory Trigger Providers
6. Conclusions, Limitation, and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Baseline Observation | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participant | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
Location | |||||||||||
Canteen (Area B) | 99.25 | 98.86 | 79.64 | 86.53 | 99.98 | 98.62 | 98.75 | 100 | 100 | 99.49 | 99.06 |
Meeting area (Area C) | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.00 |
Outside/Passing by | 0.73 | 1.02 | 20.36 | 13.47 | 0.00 | 1.38 | 1.24 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.38 | 0.94 |
Passive activities | 64.57 | 66.33 | 34.19 | 75.65 | 47.00 | 61.38 | 50.09 | 36.27 | 75.92 | 41.75 | 79.90 |
Nothing | 2.79 | 12.76 | 2.10 | 1.41 | 3.31 | 0.69 | 27.88 | 5.49 | 34.31 | 1.39 | 1.88 |
Read | 0.00 | 4.08 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 25.52 | 0.00 | 6.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.41 |
Eat and drink | 6.68 | 37.76 | 0.55 | 1.21 | 30.97 | 35.17 | 22.21 | 24.72 | 41.61 | 25.35 | 3.76 |
Watch billiards | 55.10 | 11.73 | 31.54 | 73.03 | 12.72 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 15.01 | 72.85 |
Social activities | 33.82 | 32.14 | 43.28 | 3.11 | 51.98 | 37.24 | 48.12 | 62.31 | 23.09 | 57.51 | 17.38 |
Chat | 3.50 | 30.10 | 3.73 | 2.59 | 46.83 | 36.55 | 48.01 | 61.88 | 22.36 | 38.97 | 1.28 |
Billiards | 28.43 | 0.00 | 39.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 18.41 | 13.62 |
Order | 1.89 | 2.04 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 5.15 | 0.69 | 0.11 | 0.43 | 0.73 | 0.13 | 1.88 |
Other | 1.61 | 1.53 | 22.53 | 21.24 | 1.02 | 1.38 | 1.79 | 1.42 | 0.99 | 0.74 | 3.32 |
Intervention Observation | |||||||||||
Participant | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
Location | |||||||||||
Canteen (Area B) | 99.08 | 98.36 | 81.55 | 88.61 | 99.83 | 98.90 | 98.40 | 99.95 | 99.04 | 98.30 | 97.66 |
Meeting area (Area C) | 0.16 | 1.31 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.73 | 0.14 | 0.92 |
Outside/passing by | 0.76 | 0.33 | 18.42 | 11.37 | 0.02 | 1.05 | 1.51 | 0.01 | 0.23 | 1.56 | 1.42 |
Passive activities | 61.76 | 51.73 | 35.86 | 81.78 | 32.82 | 53.76 | 44.96 | 32.21 | 67.58 | 36.06 | 73.52 |
Nothing | 0.76 | 5.81 | 4.60 | 2.41 | 4.52 | 2.32 | 28.57 | 4.27 | 24.23 | 0.00 | 2.18 |
Read | 0.00 | 5.69 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 16.32 | 0.02 | 5.51 | 0.86 | 0.12 | 1.33 |
Eat and drink | 6.05 | 32.07 | 0.48 | 1.08 | 15.72 | 35.12 | 14.22 | 21.91 | 42.49 | 22.21 | 2.73 |
Watch billiards | 54.95 | 8.16 | 30.78 | 78.29 | 12.58 | 0.00 | 2.15 | 0.52 | 0.00 | 13.73 | 67.28 |
Social activities | 37.05 | 35.04 | 44.94 | 2.73 | 47.17 | 39.13 | 52.10 | 64.76 | 24.51 | 58.58 | 19.1 |
Chat | 3.62 | 33.50 | 4.35 | 2.32 | 46.91 | 38.37 | 51.89 | 64.58 | 23.28 | 37.81 | 1.32 |
Billiards | 33.35 | 0.00 | 39.73 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 20.54 | 16.69 |
Order | 0.08 | 1.54 | 0.86 | 0.41 | 1.26 | 0.76 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 1.23 | 0.23 | 1.09 |
Interact with installation | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.06 |
Watch installation | 0.13 | 0.28 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.07 0.23 | 0.06 |
Print postcards | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Share postcards | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Other | 1.06 | 12.92 | 19.12 | 15.45 | 19.01 | 7.09 | 2.94 | 2.69 | 7.78 | 5.05 | 7.32 |
References
- Williams, K.; Kemper, S.; Hummert, M.L. Improving Nursing Home Communication: An Intervention to Reduce Elderspeak. Gerontol. 2003, 43, 242–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt-Lunstad, J.; Smith, T.B.; Layton, J.B. Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-Analytic Review. PLoS Med. 2010, 7, e1000316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tomaka, J. The Relation of Social Isolation, Loneliness, and Social Support to Disease Outcomes Among the Elderly. J. Aging Health 2006, 18, 359–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mor, V.; Branco, K.; Fleishman, J.; Hawes, C.; Phillips, C.; Morris, J.; Fries, B. The Structure of Social Engagement among Nursing Home Residents. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 1995, 50B, P1–P8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ice, G.H. Daily Life in a Nursing Home: Has It Changed in 25 Years? J. Aging Stud. 2002, 16, 345–359. [Google Scholar]
- Lieberman, M.A.; Tobin, S.S. The Experience of Old Age: Stress, Coping, and Survival; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1983; ISBN 0-465-02170-0. [Google Scholar]
- Carstensen, L.L. Selectivity Theory: Social Activity in Life-Span Context. Annu. Rev. Gerontol. Geriatr. 1991, 11, 195–217. [Google Scholar]
- Waycott, J.; Vetere, F.; Pedell, S.; Kulik, L.; Ozanne, E.; Gruner, A.; Downs, J. Older Adults as Digital Content Producers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2003; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Czaja, S.J.; Charness, N.; Fisk, A.D.; Hertzog, C.; Nair, S.N.; Rogers, W.A.; Sharit, J. Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol. Aging 2006, 21, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkman, L.F. The Assessment of Social Networks and Social Support in the Elderly. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1983, 31, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholson, N.R., Jr. Social Isolation in Older Adults: An Evolutionary Concept Analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2009, 65, 1342–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensel, B.; Parkeroliver, D.; Demiris, G. Videophone Communication Between Residents and Family: A Case Study. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2007, 8, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinquart, M.; Sorensen, S. Influences on Loneliness in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 23, 245–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, D.P.; Demiris, G.; Hensel, B. A Promising Technology to Reduce Social Isolation of Nursing Home Residents. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 2006, 21, 302–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carstensen, L.L.; Fung, H.H.; Charles, S.T. Socioemotional Selectivity Theory and the Regulation of Emotion in the Second Half of Life. Motiv. Emot. 2003, 27, 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, H.; Vetere, F.; Gibbs, M.; Francis, P. Come Play with Me: Designing Technologies for Intergenerational Play. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2012, 11, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hope, A.; Schwaba, T.; Piper, A.M. Understanding Digital and Material Social Communications for Older Adults; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 3903–3912. [Google Scholar]
- Vargheese, J.P.; Sripada, S.; Masthoff, J.; Oren, N. Persuasive Strategies for Encouraging Social Interaction for Older Adults. Int. J. Hum. -Comput. Interact. 2016, 32, 190–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsujita, H.; Abowd, G.D. SocialMedicineBox: A Communication System for the Elderly Using Medicine Box. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference Adjunct Papers on Ubiquitous Computing-Adjunct, Copenhagen, Denmark, 26–29 September 2010; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 437–438. [Google Scholar]
- Theng, Y.-L.; Chua, P.H.; Pham, T.P. Wii as Entertainment and Socialisation Aids for Mental and Social Health of the Elderly. In Proceedings of the CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 691–702. [Google Scholar]
- West, D.; Quigley, A.; Kay, J. MEMENTO: A Digital-Physical Scrapbook for Memory Sharing. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2007, 11, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnemeier, M.; Lin, Y.-Y.; Laput, G.; Vijjapurapu, R. StoryCubes: Connecting Elders in Independent Living through Storytelling. In Proceedings of the CHI’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1321–1326. [Google Scholar]
- Luyten, T.; Braun, S.; Jamin, G.; van Hooren, S.; de Witte, L. How Nursing Home Residents with Dementia Respond to the Interactive Art Installation ‘VENSTER’: A Pilot Study. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2018, 13, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Libin, A.; Cohen-Mansfield, J. Therapeutic Robocat for Nursing Home Residents with Dementia: Preliminary Inquiry. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Other Dement. 2004, 19, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidd, C.D.; Taggart, W.; Turkle, S. A Sociable Robot to Encourage Social Interaction among the Elderly. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006, Orlando, FL, USA, 15–19 May 2006; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 3972–3976. [Google Scholar]
- Robben, S.; Bergman, K.; Haitjema, S.; de Lange, Y.; Kröse, B. Reducing Dementia Related Wandering Behaviour with an Interactive Wall. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Ambient Intelligence, Pisa, Italy, 13–15 November 2012; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 296–303. [Google Scholar]
- Iancu, I.; Iancu, B. Designing Mobile Technology for Elderly. A Theoretical Overview. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 155, 119977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossi, G.; Lanzarotti, R.; Napoletano, P.; Noceti, N.; Odone, F. Positive Technology for Elderly Well-Being: A Review. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2020, 137, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ammar, A.; Bouaziz, B.; Trabelsi, K.; Glenn, J.; Zmijewski, P.; Müller, P.; Chtourou, H.; Jmaiel, M.; Chamari, K.; Driss, T.; et al. Applying Digital Technology to Promote Active and Healthy Confinement Lifestyle during Pandemics in the Elderly. Biol. Sport 2021, 38, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guner, H.; Acarturk, C. The Use and Acceptance of ICT by Senior Citizens: A Comparison of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for Elderly and Young Adults. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2020, 19, 311–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, K.; Prybutok, G.; Prybutok, V. The Use of Digital Technology for Social Wellbeing Reduces Social Isolation in Older Adults: A Systematic Review. SSM-Popul. Health 2022, 17, 101020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, C.; Kang, K.; Lin, X.; Hu, J.; Hengeveld, B.; Hummels, C. Promoting Older Residents’ Social Interaction and Wellbeing: A Design Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irizarry, C.; Downing, A.; West, D. Promoting Modern Technology and Internet Access for Under-Represented Older Populations. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 2002, 19, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishii, H. Tangible Bits: Beyond Pixels. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Bonn, Germany, 18–20 February 2008; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Carstensen, L.; Fisher, J.; Malloy, P. Cognitive and Affective Characteristics of Socially Withdrawn Nursing Home Residents. J. Clin. Geropsychology 1995, 1, 207–218. [Google Scholar]
- Beyer, H.; Holtzblatt, K. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Louise Barriball, K.; While, A. Collecting Data Using a Semi-Structured Interview: A Discussion Paper. J. Adv. Nurs. 1994, 19, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, A.; Babbie, R. Empowerment Series: Essential Research Methods for Social Work; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-305-48050-6. [Google Scholar]
- Gottesman, L.E.; Bourestom, N.C. Why Nursing Homes Do What They Do. Gerontologist 1974, 14, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, T.; Soliz, J.; Minniear, M.; Bergquist, G. Communication Accommodation and Identity Gaps as Predictors of Relational Solidarity in Interfaith Family Relationships. Commun. Rep. 2020, 33, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pennington, N. Extending Social Penetration Theory to Facebook. J. Soc. Media Soc. 2021, 10, 325–343. [Google Scholar]
- Tuan, Y. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1974; ISBN 0139252304. [Google Scholar]
Location | The senior participants in the public space could be found in the canteen (Area B), meeting space (Area C), or outside. To better record each participant’s location changes, each desk within the canteen and meeting space was numbered | |
Behavior | Social behaviors | Chatting, billiards, order (food), and playing cards |
Passive behaviors | Reading, eating, daze, drinking, watching billiards, watching cards, and smoking (outside) | |
Other | Infrequent or difficult to designate, includes watching laptops, sending letters, taking pictures, etc. | |
Time duration | For each participant, their time spent in each behavior and location was observed and recorded. Duration was recorded in increments of one minute, and less than one minute was recorded as one minute |
Baseline Mean (SD) | Intervention Mean (SD) | t-Value | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of time spent in chatting | 26.89 (21.61) | 28.00 (22.47) | −2.25 | 0.048 * |
Percentage of time spent in the meeting area | 0.03 (0.05) | 0.33 (0.44) | −2.34 | 0.042 * |
Post-Study Interview Procedure | |||||||||||||
The purpose of the interviews was explained to the older adults | |||||||||||||
The older adults were then asked to sign the consent form | |||||||||||||
A video was shown to introduce the Interactive Gallery | |||||||||||||
Each interview lasted 30 min and was conducted with care to collect comprehensive data | |||||||||||||
Semi-structured interview topics | |||||||||||||
Overall | Overall impression and evaluation of Interactive Gallery | ||||||||||||
Interaction | Interaction frequency, including watching and printing postcards, and recognition of the real-time local photos | ||||||||||||
Content | Participants’ feelings after viewing the scenery photos and their photo preferences | ||||||||||||
Sharing | Whether participants discussed Interactive Gallery with others, shared postcards with others, and if they were willing to share anything else with volunteers | ||||||||||||
Usability | Identification of problems encountered when using the Interactive Gallery | ||||||||||||
Comments | Comments on potential improvements | ||||||||||||
Demographic information of the senior participants (F = Female, M = Male) | |||||||||||||
Participant | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 | P9 | P10 | P11 | P12 | P13 |
Age, gender | 84, F | 81, F | 79, F | 83, M | 87, F | 78, F | 84, M | 83, M | 90, F | 88, F | 86, F | 90, F | 87, F |
The senior residents’ social interaction system | Formal social activity (concert, bingo, billiards, etc.) | Most did not actively participate in group activities, and the activities were not effective in promoting meaningful social interactions among them |
Informal social activity (chat, greetings, etc.) | They preferred to stay in their rooms instead of spending time in the public spaces of the nursing home | |
Internal Social Interaction (with fellow residents and caregivers) | Caregivers were solely responsible for their physical well-being | |
They experienced difficulties in establishing meaningful relationships with fellow residents | ||
External social interaction (with family members, friends, and people from local community) | Their children visited them periodically, ranging from once a week to once a month | |
Connections with old friends had declined due to mobility issues | ||
They rarely had opportunities to communicate with individuals from the local community |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, C.; Zhang, L.; Lin, X.; Kang, K.; Hu, J.; Hengeveld, B.; Hummels, C. Towards the Senior Resident Social Interaction System: A Case Study of Interactive Gallery. Systems 2023, 11, 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040204
Li C, Zhang L, Lin X, Kang K, Hu J, Hengeveld B, Hummels C. Towards the Senior Resident Social Interaction System: A Case Study of Interactive Gallery. Systems. 2023; 11(4):204. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040204
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Cun, Linghao Zhang, Xu Lin, Kai Kang, Jun Hu, Bart Hengeveld, and Caroline Hummels. 2023. "Towards the Senior Resident Social Interaction System: A Case Study of Interactive Gallery" Systems 11, no. 4: 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040204
APA StyleLi, C., Zhang, L., Lin, X., Kang, K., Hu, J., Hengeveld, B., & Hummels, C. (2023). Towards the Senior Resident Social Interaction System: A Case Study of Interactive Gallery. Systems, 11(4), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040204