A comprehensive analysis of digital health-focused Living Labs: innovative approaches to dementia

The increasing prevalence of dementia demands innovative solutions; however, existing technological products often lack tailored support for individuals living with this condition. The Living Lab approach, as a collaborative innovation method, holds promise in addressing this issue by actively involving end-users in the design and development of solutions adapted to their needs. Despite this potential, the approach still faces challenges due to its lack of recognition as a research methodology and its absence of tailored guidelines, particularly in dementia care, prompting inquiries into its effectiveness. This narrative review aims to fill this gap by identifying and analysing digital health Living Labs focusing on dementia solutions. Additionally, it proposes guidelines for enhancing their operations, ensuring sustainability, scalability, and greater impact on dementia care. Fifteen Living Labs were identified and analyzed. Based on trends, best practices, and literature, the guidelines emphasize user engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, technological infrastructure, regulatory compliance, transparent innovation processes, impact measurement, sustainability, scalability, dissemination, and financial management. Implementing these guidelines can enhance the effectiveness and long-term impact of Living Labs in dementia care, fostering new collaborations globally.

1 Introduction

Among the challenges associated with the ageing population, dementia presents an increasingly pressing societal issue. Being one of the most prevalent neurodegenerative diseases with no cure currently available, dementia ranks at the top among the leading causes of disability and dependency among older people worldwide (1). In 2020 the global number of people living with dementia was estimated at over 55 million and it is expected to reach 139 million by 2050 (2). The caregiving burden is predominantly shouldered by informal carers, typically family members and friends of those living with dementia. As the prevalence of dementia continues to rise without effective treatment, and the cost of dementia care increases, the urgent need for alternative solutions becomes more apparent. This leads to a growing reliance on innovative technologies or services to provide new responses to those affected by dementia (3, 4).

In recent years, research on using technology for dementia has gained more attention. The main areas of technological development include diagnosis, assessment and monitoring, maintenance of function, leisure activities, and caregiving and management (5). Digital health strategies for people with dementia or cognitive impairment are diverse, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data platforms, and telemedicine for monitoring cognitive functions; Extended Reality – Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR) – for education, training, and treatment; and robots and smart home technologies to enhance daily activities and social skills (6).

Although various methods and approaches for designing technology exist, a considerable number of products currently available on the market are not tailored to meet the needs of persons living with dementia (7). Given this high rate of failure, it became imperative to actively involve end-users in co-creation processes, increasing relevance and attention directed toward the Living Lab approach (8, 9). Involving and engaging individuals living with dementia in these processes poses significant challenges due to their impaired cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, excluding them will cause difficulty in implementation in real-life scenarios and will probably decrease the hypothesis of success and acceptance of such solutions (10).

Although there is not a widely recognized definition of a Living Lab, this concept is centred on two main ideas: the real-life experimentation environment and the active involvement of users in the innovation process (11, 12). Operating across diverse contexts, Living Labs serve as dynamic spaces for testing, validating, developing, and co-creating throughout the entire design and commercialization process. They function as collective hubs for innovation, offering valuable insights, serving as testbeds for pioneering products, services, systems, and solutions, and helping to create a sense of community across the development process (11). Living Labs are a collaboration between multiple stakeholders. Four key groups of stakeholders are responsible for the successful implementation and development of a Living Lab: governmental bodies, industry, academic institutions, and end-users (quadruple helix approach) (13).

Recently, these collaborations have been transformed and innovation has been accelerated due to the emergence of Smart Cities, the Internet of Things (IoT), AI, ER, and Big Data paradigms, among others. These technological advancements have not only facilitated rapid access to innovation but also enabled transitions toward greater sustainability. Moreover, they have significantly enhanced the exchange of data and knowledge, serving as drivers for policy development and the scale-up of initiatives (14).

Since 2015, there has been a substantial increase in publications focusing on Living Labs. In the field of dementia, the total number is lower but the tendency to increase since 2015 is also found. Currently, there is a large number of actively functioning Living Labs on a global scale, with a particularly pronounced prevalence in European regions (12, 15). This approach has been frequently applied to the development of health devices, addressing mostly issues associated with vulnerable groups, such as older people and age-related diseases (16).

Publications addressing the diverse needs and expectations of people living with dementia, along with corresponding solutions, have emerged in the last few years but remained notably limited (17). A scoping review conducted in 2021 investigated Living Labs studies that focused on cognitive impairment and dementia-related solutions. The Living Labs identified were dedicated to enhancing the health, quality of life, independent living, home care, and safety of older adults with cognitive disorders or dementia. Additionally, they aimed to provide support for professional and family caregivers while alleviating their burdens (17). In the context of dementia Living Labs, technological products or services that support people to live independently and well at home, such as assistive technology, are the most common (18).

Despite the potential of the Living Lab approach and the successful development of products, services and solutions (19, 20), this methodology still faces several challenges. One significant issue is that Living Labs are usually unrecognized as a research methodology and, consequently, lack the credibility required for securing traditional research funding (21). Additionally, there is a lack of tailored and specific guidelines for Living Labs, particularly in the field of dementia.

To address the gap in research focusing on the distinct features and practices of Living Labs dedicated to dementia, and to meet the societal need for tailored digital health technologies for individuals affected by this condition, this narrative review aimed to identify and analyze the characteristics of digital health Living Labs with solutions for dementia. Thus, to answer the question “What are the main characteristics of digital health Living Labs focused on dementia?,” Living Labs with this focus were screened and analyzed. Insights into their collaborative ecosystems, user engagement approaches, technological infrastructure, regulatory compliance, innovation processes, impact on healthcare outcomes, and strategies for funding and resource management were collected. The findings of this research contributed to the formulation of a comprehensive set of guidelines intended to inform about the operation and development of future Living Labs in the field. By optimising the effectiveness and impact of forthcoming Living Labs, this initiative strives to enhance approaches to develop digital health technology tailored to dementia care.

In 2015, an attempt to propose a Living Lab protocol for evaluating interventions in the context of dementia was already undertaken, albeit limited to three study cases featuring specific interventions and a restricted participant pool. The main findings from this study underscore the importance of actively involving relevant stakeholders from the inception of the process. Moreover, it stated that the industry stakeholders’ needs should be aligned with the Living Lab’s needs to gather usable insights for their interventions (22). Another study explored academic-practice partnerships of the Living Lab approach to dementia care and concluded that researchers should take the initiative in shaping collaborations and providing opportunities for stakeholder engagement (23). Recent research delved into the operational aspects of Living Labs incorporating real products from Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the everyday living environment of individuals living with dementia. The study emphasized the need for diverse stakeholder compositions and expertise. Furthermore, Living Lab researchers were identified as pivotal connectors and buffers between individuals living with dementia and SMEs, facilitating the adoption of technological products (18). It also highlighted that the implications of living with dementia need to be acknowledged and respected by care professionals, researchers and companies which may imply the adaptation of the technology, methodologies, or evaluation process, requiring time, flexibility, patience and commitment by all of the institutions involved (18).

2 Materials and methods

The process of selecting Living Labs involved the application of multiple screening methods. Initially, four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOhost) were searched to identify articles referencing Living Labs specifically dedicated to dementia and/or cognitive impairment. It is important to note that, because dementia is typically diagnosed when cognitive impairment becomes severe enough to affect social or occupational functioning (24), the study included Living Labs focused on dementia, cognitive impairment, and both.

The search strings and outcomes are detailed in the Supplementary Table S1. Following the removal of duplicates and non-English written articles, a pool of 57 full-text articles was screened for Living Labs focused on digital health, with solutions on dementia and/or cognitive impairment. From these databases, 23 articles mentioned established Living Labs and 7 Living Labs were identified with the desired focus.

Complementary to this, a search of the most established global Living Labs network was undertaken to identify other Living Labs with the intended focus, the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). ENoLL was chosen due to its international presence and extensive network (25). The search was performed in February 2024. From this screening method, 5 additional Living Labs with the intended focus were retrieved.

Furthermore, web searches were conducted to uncover additional relevant Living Labs. This retrieved 3 additional Living Labs. A total of 15 Living Labs were analyzed. Information about these Living Labs was gathered from their official websites and relevant scientific publications, including original research articles, reports, and case studies.

In the analysis of these Living Labs, each Living Lab was analyzed considering the following aspects: (1) type of living lab, (2) collaborative ecosystem, (3) user-centric approach, (4) technological infrastructure, (5) regulatory and ethical compliance, (6) innovation processes and methodologies, (7) impact and success metrics, (8) sustainability and scalability, (9) knowledge sharing and dissemination, (10) funding and resource management. These aspects were chosen based on ENoLL evaluation criteria for Living Labs eligibility (26).

Regarding the type of Living Lab, three distinct types were considered: research-driven Living Lab, Living testbed, and Living Lab as a service. To clarify, a research-driven Living Lab is characterized by a primary focus on scientific investigation and experimentation. This type of Living Lab prioritises academic research and collaboration with research institutions. Their primary goal is to generate new knowledge and advance scientific understanding. Living testbeds are environments specifically designed for the practical testing and validation of technologies, solutions or innovations. These testbeds aim to replicate real-world conditions to assess the feasibility, performance, and functionality of new concepts. Living Lab as a service refers to a model where organizations offer Living Lab facilities and expertise as a service to external entities, such as businesses, startups, or government agencies. This approach allows external partners to leverage the infrastructure, resources, and knowledge of an established Living Lab without having to develop and maintain their own. It is pertinent to note that certain Living Labs may fall into more than one of these designated categories (27).

Then, collaborative ecosystems were assessed aiming to explore whether Living Labs led collaborative initiatives and projects with other entities such as universities, industry, healthcare providers, government agencies and others.

Concerning the user-centric approach, the focus shifted to examining the integration of end-users in co-creating and evaluating digital health solutions, along with exploring the methods and tools employed to gather feedback and ideas from these users. In this context, it is essential to distinguish between two key concepts: co-creation and co-design. Co-creation involves a collaborative approach to creative problem-solving that engages diverse stakeholders throughout all stages of an initiative, encompassing problem identification, solution generation, implementation, and evaluation. On the other hand, co-design is a subset of co-creation, specifically emphasising the active collaboration among stakeholders in designing solutions tailored to a pre-defined problem (28).

Turning to technological infrastructure, the analysis centred on studying the availability of the necessary infrastructure for testing and validating digital health products. This also encompassed an examination of the integration of emerging technologies such as AI, IoT, VR, wearables, etc. in testing processes.

Subsequently, regulatory and ethical compliance was considered, particularly focusing on the adherence to frameworks related to health, digital health, and data protection and security in the healthcare field.

Concerning innovation processes and methodologies, the analysis encompassed the transparency and structure of the innovation process (prototyping, testing, and scaling up). This also involved evaluating the utilization of design thinking, agile methodologies, or other relevant approaches.

The impact and success metrics of Living Labs were analyzed with a focus on their demonstration of improving healthcare outcomes, efficiency, and patient experiences, accompanied by clear success metrics and evidence of achieved results.

This was followed by exploring the sustainability and scalability plans and initiatives of the Living Labs, which included strategies for integrating successful solutions into health systems.

In terms of knowledge sharing and dissemination, emphasis was placed on the efforts of Living Labs to share knowledge, best practices, and lessons learned with the wider community through dissemination activities.

Lastly, funding and resource management were considered, exploring budgetary allocations, funding sources, as well as the effective utilization and management of resources to sustain the operations and objectives of Living Labs.

3 Results

The data collection methodology allowed the identification of 15 Living Labs (Table 1). The majority of the Living Labs selected were European (n = 11): France (n = 4), England (n = 2), Spain (n = 2), Germany (n = 1), Scotland (n = 1) and Sweden (n = 1). Living Labs from Canada (n = 2), Australia (n = 1), and the United States of America (n = 1) were also included.

Table 1

Table 1. Identified Living focused on digital health, with solutions for dementia and/or cognitive impairment (n = 15), along with their corresponding countries, as well as a brief overview outlining the purpose and objectives of each Living Lab.

Among the 15 identified Living Labs, the primary research focus centred around leveraging digital technologies to improve/benefit: quality of life, well-being, dignity, cognition, autonomy, independent living, accessibility, social innovation, solutions focused on diagnosis, and the healthcare of people with dementia. Additionally, several Living Labs had solutions to reduce the burden on families, informal and professional caregivers and other health professionals of people living with dementia (Table 1).

The products tested/developed included assistive technologies (e.g., remote monitoring systems and context-aware applications), environmental assistance “smart homes” by intelligent appliances and furniture (e.g., kitchen appliances, refrigerator and bed), intuitive user interfaces (e.g., TV and voice control), health monitoring technologies (e.g., apps), digital diagnostics and phenotyping, digital therapeutics and clinical implementation (e.g., sensing technology to assess behavioral and psychological symptoms and to monitor treatment response in people with dementia).

The characteristics of each Living Lab were collected, and the main findings are presented in Table 2. The main categories of the Living Labs studied were research-driven Living Lab (n = 12), Living testbed (n = 9) and Living Lab as a service (n = 3).

Table 2

Table 2. Characteristics of the selected Living Labs (n = 15).

Regarding the collaborative ecosystem, the majority of the Living Labs analyzed are known to carry out or are carrying out partnerships with different entities (n = 12), including industry, startups, SMEs or larger companies, R&D organizations or centres, universities, healthcare providers and civic sectors and associations, building projects and various collaborative initiatives. However, only a small number (n = 2) reported having partnerships with policy-makers and representatives of ethical committees. For example, the LUSAGE Gerontechnology Living Lab demonstrated a comprehensive engagement across a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including in their network, policy-makers, health insurers, representatives of ethical committees and other relevant stakeholders (29). It’s important to acknowledge that available information was limited in this field for the remaining Living Labs, preventing definitive conclusions regarding their partnership structure.

Based on the available information, within the selected Living Labs, most have included co-creation with the end-users (n = 6), others include co-design and user testing (n = 3), only co-design (n = 2), or only user testing (n = 1). Interestingly, the DIDEC Living Lab follows a co-learn, co-design and co-effectuate pathway (20). For the co-creation and co-design and to gather feedback and insights from users, several strategies were reported, including focus groups, interviews, direct observations, surveys, questionnaires (e.g., pre-and post-intervention), workshops, meetings or sessions, mapping and strategic foresight.

Concerning technological infrastructure, a significant number reported having the necessary mechanisms to guarantee effective testing and adequate validation of the results of their products, services or interventions (n = 9). Some had fully equipped simulated real environments. For instance, the Bremen Ambient Assisted Living Lab (BAALL) features all standard living areas—bedroom, bathroom, dressing area, living and dining room, kitchenette, and home office —within a 60 m2 apartment, suitable for accommodating two people on a trial basis (30). Similarly, the LUSAGE Gerontechnology Living Lab boasts a versatile architectural layout that can be tailored to conduct in-situ observations, mimicking a home-like setting, according to the requirements of each project. This setup offers a controlled environment for studying user interactions with technological devices via non-intrusive methods such as an eye tracker, different types of sensors, and an audio and video recording system (29). Interestingly, the StrathLab uses VR to model ‘real-world’ environments such as pharmacies, or various spaces within a household (31). Alternatively, one Living Lab identified relied on external institutions for assessments in real-life conditions, for instance, hospital departments, day-care centres or residential establishments for dependent older adults. Related to this, some Living Labs reported integrating emerging technologies in testing processes (n = 6), using mostly different types of wearables and sensors, but also, AI, RV and AR.

Regarding regulatory and ethical compliance, as well as data protection and security, there was limited information accessible online. Only two Living Labs explicitly state compliance with regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines. The Living Lab at Liverpool John Moores University emphasized the importance of ethical considerations, ensuring that individuals deemed too vulnerable or lacking capacity should be identified and should not participate. As part of their methodology, they also provide individuals living with dementia the option to have another person present during interviews, whether it be their informal caregiver or formal carer, as a supportive measure (21).

In terms of the innovation process carried out and the methodologies applied, some of the selected Living Labs lacked publicly available information about their innovation process. Nevertheless, many exhibit transparent and structured innovation processes, including ideation, prototyping, testing and scaling up, primarily employing problem-solving methodologies (n = 10). Based on the information available, the most predominant is design thinking, i.e., human-centred design to tackle problem-solving needs; only a small number of Living Labs utilize agile methodology, i.e., an iterative and incremental process that is beneficial in uncertain contexts (32).

In terms of impact and success metrics of the selected Living Labs, the majority demonstrate their impact on improving healthcare outcomes, efficiency, or patient experiences (n = 10). This is evidenced through the sharing of success stories, the introduction of products and interventions in the market and the publication of scientific articles, case studies or reports. However, fewer have clear and available success metrics and evidence of achieved outcomes (n = 6).

Concerning sustainability and scalability, the absence of information prevented a detailed analysis of the Living Labs’ plans, initiatives, or strategies in this domain. Only one Living Lab has available information about this. As a result, it is not feasible to examine how these entities aim to integrate successful solutions into conventional healthcare systems or their broader sustainability and scalability efforts. It is also important to highlight that some of them exhibit lower maturity or are relatively recent, with a temporal scope constrained within the bounds of specific research projects. The only exception is the Laval-ROSA Transilab which has clear plans for sustainability, beyond the planned project funding. For instance, they intend to employ a research agent to facilitate coordination and foster internal sustainability (33). Additionally, this Living Lab also aims to support the learning transfer from Transilab to other health organizations (33).

Regarding sharing and dissemination, almost all the Living Labs reported efforts to share knowledge, best practices and lessons learned with the broader community (n = 14). Additionally, half of the Living Labs analyzed are members of ENoLL (n = 7). ENoLL, a global network of open Living Labs, plays a crucial role in this dissemination by fostering a dynamic, multi-layered innovation ecosystem that facilitates cooperation and synergy among its members and external stakeholders (25). Besides ENoLL, the Swinburne Living Lab is also a member of the Australian Living Lab Innovation Network (ALLiN) (34). Furthermore, the dissemination of knowledge by some of the identified Living Labs is promoted through the publication of editorials, literature reviews, case studies, book reports and other scientific articles, training, workshops, congresses, webinars, newsletters and/or posters (20, 21, 29, 30, 33, 35–38).

Finally, regarding financing and resource management, the larger part of the Living Labs provides limited or no information on this aspect. From our analysis, only four Living Labs have some information about financial support. For the majority, project funds are described as the main source of budgetary support. The importance of financial support was particularly stressed by the LUSAGE Gerontechnology Living Lab which underscored the need for a sustainable business model. This model should address key issues such as defining roles for private (such as banks and insurance companies) and public stakeholders, recognizing the value of innovative solutions, and establishing legal and political frameworks for sustainability strategies (29).

4 Discussion

Many digital health solutions for dementia do not meet the specific needs, expectations and capabilities of individuals (39). This highlights the importance of creating customized technology and the need for the Living Lab approach, which involves end-users in the development process through a collaborative multidisciplinary network. While this approach is gaining increased interest from researchers and policymakers as a “practical innovation ecosystem,” there remains a significant gap in understanding its operation and resultant outcomes, prompting inquiries into its effectiveness (40).

With this in mind, the present study focuses on examining Living Labs that utilize digital solutions for individuals living with dementia or cognitive impairment. It aims to analyze their main characteristics to ultimately develop guidelines and highlight best practices for future initiatives in this area, and potentially aid in harmonising procedures regarding the operation of Living Labs in the field of dementia. To achieve this, 15 Living Labs were identified and analyzed, and several aspects came into consideration.

It is important to note that ENoLL already has a list of 20 indicators of the success of the performance of a Living Lab that can be seen as guidelines to follow. These indicators are based on the following areas: active user involvement, multi-method approach, multi-stakeholder participation, orchestration, real-life setting, and co-creation (26). There are other tools, similar to this one, that have been developed mostly in European projects [e.g., SISCODE Self-assessment questionnaire by Schmittinger et al. (41, 42) but are still in the testing phase or are not easily accessible due to scattered publications (41–43). Although these indicators are critical, they are general and lack the specificity needed for the operation and development of digital health Living Labs in dementia care.

The main focus of the Living Labs identified was to improve the quality of life and health of people living with dementia. However, it is worth mentioning that certain Living Labs prioritised the needs and designed solutions that targeted not only people with dementia but also individuals in their ecosystems, including caregivers, family members, and health professionals. Given the escalating demand for family caregivers due to the ageing population and the growing prevalence of dementia, there is a pressing need for tools that alleviate their burdens (physical, psychological and financial). These caregivers, who are predominantly older individuals themselves, require assistance and support in managing their caregiving responsibilities, enhancing their understanding (e.g., disease, care tasks, legal issues), and accessing healthcare services (44). Moreover, there is a noticeable willingness among caregivers to adopt new technologies to aid in their caregiving tasks (44).

Interdisciplinary collaboration also emerged as a crucial aspect of the selected Living Labs, promoting cooperation among researchers, healthcare professionals, technology experts, designers and people living with dementia to leverage diverse perspectives and expertise in solution development (18). However, it is fundamental to cultivate strategic partnerships with policymakers and ethical committees to ensure the sustainability of Living Lab initiatives. Ensuring long-term engagement with users and stakeholders is highlighted as essential, emphasising continuous feedback gathering, impact assessment, and adaptation to evolving user needs (29).

A significant hurdle faced by Living Labs in this field stems from the recognition that unique challenges arise in the process of co-creating products, services, and practices with people living with dementia. Communicating with designers and articulating their thoughts in a traditional co-design setting proves to be challenging for people with dementia (45). However, this design-driven approach to Living Labs has already proven effective in improving the value proposition of an innovative technological solution in the context of dementia care (46).

Within the studied Living Labs, most included co-creation with the end-users, while others included co-design and/or user testing. In this setup, users may either be seen as passive subjects to be observed or can actively participate as equal co-creators, offering valuable insights into the development of sustainable products and services. It is essential to emphasize that within a Living Lab approach, users should be regarded as partners in the innovation process, rather than just subjects of study (47). The selected Living Labs used different strategies to gather feedback and co-create with their end-users, such as focus groups, interviews, surveys, workshops, and strategic foresight exercises. While there is no standard practice in the literature, common methods for involving people with dementia in all phases of development include interviews and observations (48).

It is important to note that these approaches differ in the nature and intensity of the relationship between designers and users. A systematic review of involving people living with dementia in developing supportive technologies highlighted a lack of specific knowledge about the research methods and materials required to actively engage these individuals throughout the development process. It suggests that successful co-design with people living with dementia may not yet exist or is unpublished. The review found that the people involved were typically in mild to moderate stages of the condition. In all the studies reviewed, the initial idea for the technology or service had already been formed before including people with dementia. None of the articles measured whether the participants felt like equal partners in the process (48).

Co-creation with people with dementia can require multiple moments of explaining and repeating instructions, methodologies may need to be adapted to improve accessibility and timeframes may need extending (18). It is important to highlight that, although core symptoms such as reduced retrospective and abstract thinking, the course of dementia can vary, both between and within individuals, in an unpredictable way (48, 49). This is reflected in how they interact with and adopt technology (50). Therefore, designers and researchers should focus on the individual’s current abilities when using or testing technology (50). Despite these challenges, individuals living with dementia often exhibit a sense of purpose and curiosity toward testing new products, which fosters their willingness to participate in such initiatives (18). Additionally, support from informal and formal caregivers can enhance the ability of people living with dementia to use the technology (50). Usually, caregivers also play a vital role in explaining and stimulating the use of technologies, which implies that the caregivers also need to embrace the technological product or service and see the value it adds to their daily care practice (51).

The selected Living Labs exhibit some gaps and weaknesses that may impede their overall effectiveness and long-term impact. One significant limitation is the lack of transparent communication channels and overall information about the Living Lab, which may hinder openness toward new partners, collaborations, investors and public visibility and interaction. This also extends to critical information about regulatory frameworks, ethical guidelines, data privacy and security measures, funding sources, and efficient financial management for research, development, and operations.

The lack of solutions to integrate the existing healthcare system may also hinder adoption and interoperability. A recent review showed that the Living Lab approach contributes to the successful implementation of innovations in healthcare. It also reported that for this successful implementation, it is necessary six factors: early involvement of end-users, appropriate timing, effective leadership, openness to change, sense of ownership and organizational support (52).

Additionally, some of the Living Labs have a short-term duration, confined to the duration of specific research projects, which raises concerns about sustainability. The ability to continue project activities after the project concludes is jeopardized, potentially limiting the lasting impact these initiatives could have. Consequently, valuable effort, expertise, and knowledge acquired during these projects are at risk of being lost. Additionally, Living Labs frequently exhibit localized and small-scale scopes, presenting difficulties in achieving scalability. To attract larger-scale innovative enterprises, Living Labs must collaborate at national and international levels, overcoming this scalability challenge (53).

Another issue is that several of the identified Living Labs do not seem to undertake project evaluations or assess their impact. This lack of systematic evaluation hampers the progress of Living Labs, as it becomes challenging to learn from experiences and enhance future endeavors (54). Although Living Labs are beginning to pay attention to sharing their outcomes and benefits, only a few have focused on evaluating or measuring their performance (12).

Finally, the lack of a higher number of published articles or other dissemination activities restricts the broader accessibility of valuable insights and best practices in this field. Addressing these gaps is crucial for fostering the growth, sustainability, and impact of a Living Lab. In fact, questions about the effectiveness and outcomes of Living Lab initiatives are partly owed to the paucity of published evidence and insufficient reports of performance evaluations (40).

4.1 Guidelines for digital health Living Labs focused on dementia

Drawing from trends, best practices, and limitations observed in the analyzed Living Labs in this narrative review, as well as insights from existing literature discussed above, a comprehensive set of guidelines is proposed for Living Labs employing digital solutions for individuals living with dementia or cognitive impairment. These guidelines encompass 10 pivotal areas (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Guidelines proposed for the operation and development of digital health Living Labs focused on dementia.

These pivotal areas include the establishment of collaborative ecosystems, promoting interdisciplinary engagement among dementia researchers, healthcare practitioners, technologists, and caregivers. Additionally, a user-centric approach, where individuals living with dementia are engaged throughout all stages of innovation, is prioritized and tailored to the specific cognitive and functional intricacies of these individuals. Ensuring a robust technological infrastructure is essential, finely tuned to address the unique needs and challenges inherent in dementia care. Adhering to regulatory and ethical standards is emphasized to safeguard the integrity and privacy of sensitive health data. Transparent innovation processes are advocated, requiring clear documentation of methodologies and decisions throughout the innovation lifecycle. Moreover, the guidelines stress the importance of demonstrating impact through measurable success metrics, as well as planning for sustainability and scalability, and facilitating knowledge sharing and dissemination. Efficient financial and resource management is highlighted, alongside the implementation of continuous monitoring and improvement mechanisms, allowing for iterative refinement and adaptation of strategies in response to evolving technological landscapes and user needs within the dementia care paradigm.

By addressing these areas, Living Labs can create a comprehensive environment for developing digital health solutions tailored to the specific needs of individuals living with dementia. These guidelines, designed to be actionable, empower Living Labs to tackle challenges and leverage best practices, fostering sustainable innovation through interdisciplinary collaboration, active end-user involvement, and strategic partnerships. Furthermore, they offer a framework for continuous improvement, ensuring adaptability to evolving technologies and user needs. By adhering to these guidelines, the Living Lab community can elevate the quality and impact of their initiatives, ultimately enhancing health outcomes and quality of life for people living with dementia. These guidelines provide practical recommendations for researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders interested in advancing innovation in this field.

4.2 Limitations of the narrative review

This study has some limitations that need to be addressed. The process of selecting Living Labs may have introduced bias, as it relied on the publication of scientific articles and networks. This approach may have overlooked relevant Living Labs that are not mentioned in published scientific articles or belong to ENoLL, however, to overcome this, additional web searches were carried out. Additionally, the majority of the identified Living Labs were from European countries, with fewer from other regions. This geographic imbalance may limit the generalizability of the findings, as different regions may have unique healthcare systems, regulatory frameworks, and cultural factors influencing Living Lab operations. Finally, the analysis of Living Labs relied on publicly available information from official websites and scientific publications. However, the completeness and accuracy of this information may vary, leading to potential gaps or inaccuracies in the assessment of Living Lab characteristics and activities.

5 Conclusion

The rise of dementia within an ageing population demands innovative solutions, with Living Labs offering promising avenues for co-creating and testing interventions. In this study, 15 digital health Living Labs focused on dementia and/or cognitive impairment were examined and guidelines for the operation and development of these Living Labs were constructed. Key findings reveal the importance of user engagement and interdisciplinary collaboration. Challenges include integration in the healthcare system, communication gaps, limited scalability, and lack of systematic evaluation. These challenges underscore the need for a holistic approach to address the multifaceted issues hindering the effectiveness and long-term impact of Living Labs, an approach that holds promise as a practical innovation ecosystem. Proposed guidelines emphasize user-centric approaches for people living with dementia, specific collaborative ecosystems, technological infrastructure, regulatory compliance, transparent innovation processes, impact measurement, sustainability planning, knowledge sharing, financial management, and continuous improvement. Implementing these guidelines can enhance the effectiveness and long-term impact of Living Labs in dementia care. Moreover, the guidelines suggested have the potential to serve as a valuable resource for Living Labs, focusing on similar solutions, on a global level. This will pave the way for new and successful collaborations.

Author contributions

TF: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. LM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. JoC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. DV: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. SA: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. ND: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. MB: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. JF: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. MG: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. DF: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. AF: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. IF: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. JuC: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. MR: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. EC: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was performed in the framework of INNOV4LIFE, a project co-financed by the European Union through the Interreg España-Portugal/POCTEP (Ref. 0088_INNOV4LIFE_1_P).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1418612/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Perneczky, R . Dementia prevention and reserve against neurodegenerative disease. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. (2019) 21:53–60. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2019.21.1/rperneczky2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Alzheimer’s Disease International. Dementia facts & figures . Available at: https://www.alzint.org (Accessed December 18, 2023).

Google Scholar

3. Thoma-Lürken, T, Lexis, MAS, Bleijlevens, MHC, and 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

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Gerka, A, Eichelberg, M, Bayer, M, Frenken, M, and Hein, A. Ambient water usage sensor for the identification of daily activities, 2017 Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS). Geneva, Switzerland, (2017) 1–6.

Google Scholar

5. Astell, AJ, Bouranis, N, Hoey, J, Lindauer, A, Mihailidis, A, Nugent, C, et al. Technology and dementia: the future is now. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. (2019) 47:131–9. doi: 10.1159/000497800

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Sohn, M, Yang, JY, Sohn, J, and Lee, JH. Digital healthcare for dementia and cognitive impairment: a scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud. (2023) 140:104413:104413. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104413

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Miguel Cruz, A, Daum, C, Comeau, A, Salamanca, JDG, McLennan, L, Neubauer, N, et al. Acceptance, adoption, and usability of information and communication technologies for people living with dementia and their care partners: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. (2023) 18:443–57. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2020.1864671

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Shastri, K, Boger, J, Marashi, S, Astell, A, Dove, E, Nedlund, AC, et al. Working towards inclusion: creating technology for and with people living with mild cognitive impairment or dementia who are employed. Dementia. (2022) 21:556–78. doi: 10.1177/14713012211051885

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Almirall, E, and Wareham, J. Contributions of Living Labs in reducing market based risk In: 2009 IEEE international technology management conference (ICE), Leiden, Netherlands, (2009), 1–11.

Google Scholar

10. Astell, AJ, Ellis, MP, Bernardi, L, Alm, N, Dye, R, Gowans, G, et al. Using a touch screen computer to support relationships between people with dementia and caregivers. Interact Comput. (2010) 22:267–75. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.03.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Dell'Era, C, and Landoni, P. Living Lab: a methodology between user-centred design and participatory design. Creat Innov Manag. (2014) 23:137–54. doi: 10.1111/caim.12061

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Hossain, M, Leminen, S, and Westerlund, M. A systematic review of Living Lab literature. J Clean Prod. (2019) 213:976–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Gascó, M . Living Labs: implementing open innovation in the public sector. Gov Inf Q. (2017) 34:90–8. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Greve, K, Vita, RD, Leminen, S, and Westerlund, M. Living Labs: from niche to mainstream innovation management. Sustain For. (2021) 13:791. doi: 10.3390/su13020791

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. McPhee, C, Santonen, T, Shah, A, and Nazari, A. Reflecting on 10 years of the TIM review. Manag Rev. (2017) 7:5–20. doi: 10.22215/timreview1087

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Kim, J, Kim, YL, Jang, H, Cho, M, Lee, M, Kim, J, et al. Living Labs for health: an integrative literature review. Eur J Pub Health. (2019) 30:55–63. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz105

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Verloo, H, Lorette, A, Rosselet Amoussou, J, Gillès de Pélichy, E, Matos Queirós, A, von Gunten, A, et al. Using Living Labs to explore needs and solutions for older adults with dementia: scoping review. JMIR Aging. (2021) 4:e29031. doi: 10.2196/29031

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Toso, F, Brankaert, R, Hendriks, N, Lenaerts, L, and Wilkinson, A. Reflecting on living Labs as multi-stakeholder collaborative networks to evaluate technological products for people living with dementia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2023) 20:1673. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20031673

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Fotis, T, Kioskli, K, Sundaralingam, A, Fasihi, A, and Mouratidis, H. Co-creation in a digital health Living Lab: a case study. Front Public Health. (2023) 10:10. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.892930

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Argento, DL, and Eva,. A report on the activities and results of the digital innovation for dementia care (DIDEC) project. Kristianstad, Sweden: Kristianstad University Press (2021).

Google Scholar

21. Smith, G, Dixon, C, Neiva Ganga, R, and Greenop, D. How do we know co-created solutions work effectively within the real world of people living with dementia? Learning methodological lessons from a co-creation-to-evaluation case study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:14317. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192114317

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Brankaert, R, Ouden, E, and Brombacher, A. Innovate dementia: the development of a Living Lab protocol to evaluate interventions in context. Info. (2015) 17:40–52. doi: 10.1108/info-01-2015-0010

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Bühler, F, Leinen, A, Schneider-Schelte, H, Meyer, G, Dichter, MN, Köpke, S, et al. Exploring stakeholders’ perspectives on the adaptation of the Living Lab approach to dementia care: a qualitative study. Geriatr Nurs. (2023) 54:184–91. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.09.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Hugo, J, and Ganguli, M. Dementia and cognitive impairment: epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Clin Geriatr Med. (2014) 30:421–42. doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2014.04.001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Labs, E.N.O.L . What is ENoLL? October to November 2023. Available at: https://enoll.org/about-us/ (Accessed March 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

26. ENoLL . Adherent member application guidelines - 13th wave, ENoLL. (2019).

Google Scholar

27. 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 University. Faculty of Political and Social Sciences; Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Brussels, Belgium: Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences Place of publication. (2015).

Google Scholar

28. Vargas, C, Whelan, J, Brimblecombe, J, and Allender, S. Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health – a perspective on definitions and distinctions. Public Health Res Pract. (2022) 32:e2022. doi: 10.17061/phrp3222211

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Pino, M, Benveniste, S, Kerhervé, H, Picard, R, Legouverneur, G, Cristancho-Lacroix, V, et al. Contribution of the Living Lab approach to the development, assessment and provision of assistive technologies for supporting older adults with cognitive disorders. Studia informatica Universalis. (2014) 11:34–62.

Google Scholar

30. Krieg-Brückner, B, Röfer, T, Shi, H, and Gersdorf, B. Mobility assistance in the Bremen ambient assisted Living Lab. Psychiatry. (2010) 23:121–30. doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. University of Strathclyde Glasgow . StrathLab: A Living Lab at Strathclyde. Available at: https://www.strath.ac.uk/workwithus/strathlabalivinglabatstrathclyde/ (Accessed March 14, 2024).

Google Scholar

32. Wangsa, K, RChugh, R, Karim, S, and Sandu, R. A comparative study between design thinking, agile, and design sprint methodologies. Int J Agile Syst Manag. (2022) 15:2022. doi: 10.1504/IJASM.2022.10049716

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Dufour, I, Arsenault-Lapierre, G, Guillette, M, Dame, N, Poitras, ME, Lussier, MT, et al. Research protocol of the Laval-ROSA Transilab: a Living Lab on transitions for people living with dementia. BMC Health Serv Res. (2023) 23:1255. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10248-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Australian Living Labs Innovation Network . Available at: https://www.australianlivinglabs.com.au/ (Accessed March 14, 2024).

Google Scholar

35. Imbeault, H, Gagnon, L, Pigot, H, Giroux, S, Marcotte, N, Cribier-Delande, P, et al. Impact of AP@LZ in the daily life of three persons with Alzheimer’s disease: long-term use and further exploration of its effectiveness. Neuropsychol Rehabil. (2018) 28:755–78. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2016.1172491

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Pedell, S, Favilla, S, Murphy, A, Beh, J, and Petrovich, T. Promoting personhood for people with dementia through shared social touchscreen interactions In: A Woodcock, et al., editors. Design of assistive technology for ageing populations. Cham: Springer International Publishing (2020). 335–61.

Google Scholar

37. Husebo, BS, Heintz, HL, Berge, LI, Owoyemi, P, Rahman, AT, and Vahia, IV. Sensing technology to monitor Behavioral and psychological symptoms and to assess treatment response in people with dementia. A systematic review. Front Pharmacol. (2020) 10:10. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01699

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Vahia, IV, Kabelac, Z, Hsu, CY, Forester, BP, Monette, P, May, R, et al. Radio signal sensing and signal processing to monitor Behavioral symptoms in dementia: a case study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. (2020) 28:820–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2020.02.012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Guisado-Fernández, E, Giunti, G, Mackey, LM, Blake, C, and Caulfield, BM. Factors influencing the adoption of smart health Technologies for People with Dementia and Their Informal Caregivers: scoping review and design framework. JMIR Aging. (2019) 2:e12192. doi: 10.2196/12192

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Paskaleva, K, and Cooper, I. Are Living Labs effective? Exploring Evid Technov. (2021) 106:102311. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102311

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Deserti, A, Rizzo, F, Kaletka, C, Eckhardt, J, Krüger, D, and Schulz, AC. SISCODE co-design for society in innovation and science. (2021). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5de370cb3&appId=PPGMS (Accessed March 18, 2024).

Google Scholar

42. Grooten, L, Vrijhoef, HJM, Calciolari, S, Ortiz, LGG, Janečková, M, Minkman, MMN, et al. Assessing the maturity of the healthcare system for integrated care: testing measurement properties of the SCIROCCO tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2019) 19:63. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0704-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Nakagawa, A, Freeman, S, Koopmans, A, Ross, C, and McAloney, R. Best practices for Living Labs when studying older adults living in rural communities. Innov Aging. (2021) 5:1026. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igab046.3673, eCollection 2021

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Kagwa, AS, Konradsen, H, and Kabir, ZN. Value co-creation with family caregivers to people with dementia through a tailor-made mHealth application: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. (2022) 22:1362. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08704-w

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Wang, G, Marradi, C, Albayrak, A, and van der Cammen, TJM. Co-designing with people with dementia: a scoping review of involving people with dementia in design research. Maturitas. (2019) 127:55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.06.003

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Brankaert, R, and den Ouden, E. The design-driven Living Lab: a new approach to exploring solutions to complex societal challenges. Technol Innov Manag Rev. (2017) 7:44–51. doi: 10.22215/timreview/1049

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Leminen, S, and Westerlund, M. Towards innovation in Living Labs networks. Int J Prod Dev. (2012) 17:43–59. doi: 10.1504/IJPD.2012.051161

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Suijkerbuijk, S, Nap, HH, Cornelisse, L, IJsselsteijn, WA, de Kort, YAW, and Minkman, MMN. Active involvement of people with dementia: a systematic review of studies developing supportive technologies. J Alzheimers Dis. (2019) 69:1041–65. doi: 10.3233/JAD-190050

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Melis, RJF, Haaksma, ML, and Muniz-Terrera, G. Understanding and predicting the longitudinal course of dementia. Curr Opin Psychiatry. (2019) 32:123–9. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000482

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Thoolen, M, Toso, F, Peek, STM, Lu, Y, and Brankaert, R. LivingMoments: Bespoke social communication for people living with dementia and their relatives, in proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. (2022), Association for Computing Machinery: New Orleans, LA, USA.

Google Scholar

51. Houben, M, Brankaert, R, Dhaeze, E, Kenning, G, Bongers, I, Eggen, B., et al., Enriching everyday lived experiences in dementia care, in proceedings of the sixteenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. (2022), Association for Computing Machinery, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, p. 20.

Google Scholar

52. Zipfel, N, Horreh, B, Hulshof, CTJ, de Boer, AGEM, and van der Burg-Vermeulen, SJ. The relationship between the Living Lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations: an integrative review. BMJ Open. (2022) 12:e058630. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058630

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Europe, A.I. , Establishing a sustainable Living Lab. (2022). Available at: https://licalab.be/src/Frontend/Files/Publication/File/ACSELL%20PILOT%20ACTION%20-%20Establishing%20a%20sustainable%20living%20lab%20-%20final.pdf (Accessed March 14, 2024).

Google Scholar

54. Beaudoin, C, Joncoux, S, Jasmin, JF, Berberi, A, McPhee, C, Schillo, RS, et al. A research agenda for evaluating living labs as an open innovation model for environmental and agricultural sustainability. Environ. Chall. (2022) 7:100505:100505. doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2022.100505

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar