IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i3p1673-d1038622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflecting on Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Networks to Evaluate Technological Products for People Living with Dementia

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca Toso

    (Human Centred Design (HCD) Group, Department of Design, Production and Management, Faculty of Engineering Technology (ET), University of Twente, Horst Complex, 7522 LV Enschede, The Netherlands
    Systemic Change Group, Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Atlas Building, 5612 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Rens Brankaert

    (Systemic Change Group, Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Atlas Building, 5612 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Health Innovations & Technology, Fontys School of Allied Health Professions, Dominee Theodor Fliednerstraat 2, 5631 BN Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Niels Hendriks

    (Interactions Research Group, LUCA School of Arts, C-Mine 5, 3600 Genk, Belgium)

  • Lieke Lenaerts

    (Interactions Research Group, LUCA School of Arts, C-Mine 5, 3600 Genk, Belgium)

  • Andrea Wilkinson

    (Interactions Research Group, LUCA School of Arts, C-Mine 5, 3600 Genk, Belgium)

Abstract

Dementia is a growing societal challenge putting pressure on care systems across Europe. Providing supporting technology for people living with dementia, referring to both people with dementia and their caregivers, is an important strategy to alleviate pressure. In this paper, we present lessons learned from the Interreg NWE Project Certification-D, in which we evaluated technological products with people living with dementia, using a Living Lab approach. Living Labs were set up in five different countries to conduct field evaluations at the homes of people living with dementia. Via an open call products from small to medium enterprises across northwestern Europe were selected to be evaluated in the Living Labs. In this paper, we describe the setup of and reflection on Living Labs as multi-stakeholder collaboration networks to evaluate technological products in the context of dementia. We reflect on the experiences and insights from the Living Lab researchers to execute and operate the Living Labs in such a sensitive setting. Our findings show that Living Labs can be used to conduct field evaluations of products, that flexibility is required to adopt a Living Lab in various care settings with different stakeholder compositions and expertise, and that Living Lab researchers serve as both a linking pin and buffer between people living with dementia and companies and thereby support the adoption of technological products. We close the paper with a proposal of best practices to encourage inclusivity in, and scalability of, Living Labs in the context of dementia.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca Toso & Rens Brankaert & Niels Hendriks & Lieke Lenaerts & Andrea Wilkinson, 2023. "Reflecting on Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Networks to Evaluate Technological Products for People Living with Dementia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:1673-:d:1038622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/1673/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/3/1673/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Indre Kalinauskaite & Rens Brankaert & Yuan Lu & Tilde Bekker & Aarnout Brombacher & Steven Vos, 2021. "Facing Societal Challenges in Living Labs: Towards a Conceptual Framework to Facilitate Transdisciplinary Collaborations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimitri Schuurman & Seppo Leminen, 2021. "Living Labs Past Achievements, Current Developments, and Future Trajectories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-6, September.
    2. Gwen Klerks & Geertje Slingerland & Indre Kalinauskaite & Nicolai Brodersen Hansen & Ben Schouten, 2022. "When Reality Kicks In: Exploring the Influence of Local Context on Community-Based Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Sean Geobey, 2022. "Reckoning with Reality: Reflections on a Place-Based Social Innovation Lab," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Anosh Nadeem Butt & Branka Dimitrijević, 2023. "Developing and Testing a General Framework for Conducting Transdisciplinary Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-26, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:3:p:1673-:d:1038622. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.