## 5 Workshop Results and Analysis
### Dot Voting Activity Results  
The results of the dot voting activity, where participants allocated weighted votes (single, double, triple, or negative) to express their preferences for various assistive technologies, are summarised in Figure 10.  
Figure 10: Summarised distribution of all positive votes, including single (green stripes), double (green circles), and triple voting (blue Stars), as well as negative votes (red) for assistive technologies. The strong preference for Fall Detection Systems among pre-frail adults underscores their prioritisation of safety and security. This choice reflects a deep awareness of the risks associated with falls, which can lead to severe injuries and a loss of independence. The appeal of these systems lies in their ability to provide immediate alerts to caregivers or emergency services, offering a sense of reassurance and aligning with the increasing focus on proactive measures to prevent fall-related incidents. The significant adoption of Wearable Devices and Smart Communication technologies highlights a growing comfort with and trust in technology among pre-frail adults. Their preference for these tools suggests a desire for continuous health monitoring and enhanced communication, driven by the potential to maintain a higher quality of life. Wearable Devices are favoured for their capacity to monitor vital signs, activity levels, and sleep patterns, which offer pre-frail adults valuable health insights and a greater sense of control over their well-being. Similarly, Smart Communication technologies are chosen for their ability to facilitate social interaction, provide easy access to information, and allow for remote monitoring, all of which contribute to a stronger sense of security and connectedness. The moderate interest in Medication Management Systems indicates that while medication adherence is a concern, it may be a lower priority compared to other health technologies. This choice suggests that while pre-frail adults recognise the potential benefits of these systems, such as reminders and tracking for medication adherence, they may not yet see them as essential, or they may be exploring simpler solutions. Their moderate interest might also point to a need for more intuitive or customisable features that align more closely with their daily routines and specific health needs. The low preference for Mobility Assistants may suggest that pre-frail adults prioritise maintaining independence over the potential benefits of mobility aids. This choice reflects a complex relationship with assistive technologies, where the desire to avoid being perceived as dependent or frail may outweigh the practical benefits of using such devices. Concerns about stigma, cost, and the practicality of mobility aids may influence this decision, indicating a preference for solutions that support autonomy without compromising self-perception. Overall, these preferences reveal that pre-frail adults are carefully selecting technologies that align with their values and concerns, emphasising safety, autonomy, and proactive health management. Their choices reflect a nuanced approach to technology adoption, where the perceived benefits of maintaining independence and well-being are balanced against potential drawbacks, such as stigma or complexity. Table 4 presents the questionnaire data statistics, calculated to three decimal places. The table compares the responses of pre-frail older residents (\(n=18\)) with those of specialists (\(n=9\)). Notably, the standard deviation among residents is generally higher than that of specialists, indicating greater variability in their responses. This suggests that the residents' experiences and perceptions of technology are more heterogeneous, likely due to varying levels of familiarity and comfort with technology among this demographic. In particular, the residents reported lower scores on the subjective norm question and moderate scores on the loss of independence question.