Top

BMC Geriatrics

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

How age and health status impact attitudes towards aging and technologies in care: a quantitative analysis

Authors: Julia Offermann, Wiktoria Wilkowska, Thea Laurentius, L. Cornelius Bollheimer, Martina Ziefle

Published in: BMC Geriatrics | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Increasing proportions of geriatric patients pose tremendous challenges for our society. Developments in assistive technologies have the potential to support older and frail people in aging and care. To reach a sustainable adoption of these technologies, the perceptions and wishes of future users must be understood. In particular, the relationships between individual health-related factors, and the perceptions of aging and using assistive technologies in severe health situations must be empirically examined.

Methods

Addressing this research gap, our quantitative study (N = 570) investigates the impact of diverse future users’ age and health status on their a) perceptions of aging, b) perceptions and acceptance of using assistive technologies in aging and care, as well as c) end-of-life decisions regarding technology usage. For this, four groups were segmented for the comparison of younger (< 50 years) healthy, younger chronically ill, older (50 + years) healthy, and older chronically ill participants.

Results

The results revealed that health status is more decisive for age-related perceptions compared to age. The technology-related perceptions were slightly impacted by either chronological age or health status. The end-of-life decisions showed the most striking differences in the willingness to use assistive technologies, revealing older chronically ill participants to have more restrained attitudes towards technology usage than older healthy as well as all younger participants.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that the benefits of assistive technologies in private or professional care contexts should be communicated and implemented tailored to the respective user group’s needs. Moreover, the results allow us to derive practical implications within the geriatric care context.

Available only for authorised users

Drennan VM, Ross F. Global nurse shortages: the facts, the impact and action for change. Brit Med Bull. 2019;130(1):25–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldz014.CrossRefPubMed

Walker A, Maltby T. Active ageing: a strategic policy solution to demographic ageing in the European Union. Int J Soc Welfare. 2012;21:117–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2012.00871.x.CrossRef

Pickard L. A growing care gap? The supply of unpaid care for older people by their adult children in England to 2032. Ageing Soc. 2015;35(1):96–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X13000512.CrossRef

Rashidi P, Mihailidis A. A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2012;17(3):579–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2012.2234129.CrossRef

van Hoof J, Kort HSM, Rutten PGS, Duijnstee MSH. Ageing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: perspectives of older users. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(5):310–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.02.010.CrossRefPubMed

Wiles JL, Leibing A, Guberman N, Reeve J, Allen RES. The meaning of “Ageing in Place” to older people. Gerontologist. 2011;098:357–gnr098. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr098.CrossRef

Li S, Hossain M, Gilman B, Forrow LV, Lee KM, Brown R. Effects of a nursing home telehealth program on spending and utilization for Medicare residents. Health Serv Res. 2022;57(5):1191–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13936.CrossRefPubMed

Memon M, Wagner SR, Pedersen CF, Beevi FHA, Hansen FO. Ambient assisted living healthcare frameworks, platforms, standards, and quality attributes. Sensors. 2014;14(3):4312–41. https://doi.org/10.3390/s140304312.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Peek ST, Wouters EJ, Van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):235–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Rahimi B, Nadri H, Afshar HL, Timpka T. A systematic review of the technology acceptance model in health informatics. Appl Clinical Inform. 2018;9(3):604–34. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1668091.CrossRef

11.

Ziefle M, Schaar AK. Technology acceptance by patients: empowerment and stigma. In: van Hoof J, Demiris G, Wouters E, editors. Handbook of smart homes, health care and well-being, Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. Springer; 2014, p. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01904-8_34-1.

12.

Wurm S, Tesch-Römer C, Tomasik MJ. Longitudinal findings on aging-related cognitions, control beliefs, and health in later life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2007;62(3):156–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/62.3.p156.CrossRef

13.

da Costa JP, Vitorino R, Silva GM, Vogel C, Duarte AC, Rocha-Santos T. A synopsis on aging-Theories, mechanisms and future prospects. Ageing Res Rev. 2016;29:90–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2016.06.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Borras C, Ingles M, Mas-Bargues C, Dromanta M, Sanz-Rosa J, Román-Domíngueza A, Gimeno-Mallencha L, Gambinia J, Viñaa J. Centenarians: an excellent example of resilience for successful ageing. Mech Ageing. 2020;186:111199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2019.111199.CrossRef

15.

Hamczyk MR, Nevado RM, Barettino A, Fuster V, Andrés V. Biological versus chronological aging: JACC focus seminar. J American College Cardiol. 2020;75(8):919–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.062.CrossRef

16.

Santoni G, Angleman S, Welmer AK, Mangialasche F, Marengoni A, Fratiglioni L. Age-related variation in health status after age 60. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0120077. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120077.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Cohen-Mansfield J, Shmotkin D, Blumstein Z, Shorek A, Eyal N, Hazan H, CALAS Team. The old, old-old, and the oldest old: continuation or distinct categories? An examination of the relationship between age and changes in health, function, and wellbeing. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2013;77(1):37–57. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.77.1.c.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Brivio P, Paladini MS, Racagni G, Riva MA, Calabrese F, Molteni R. From healthy aging to frailty: in search of the underlying mechanisms. Curr Med Chem. 2019;26(20):3685–701. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867326666190717152739.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Bierman AS, Tinetti ME. Precision medicine to precision care: managing multimorbidity. Lancet. 2016;388(10061):2721–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32232-2.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Landi F, Liperoti R, Russo A, Capoluongo E, Barillaro C, Pahor M, Onder G. Disability, more than multimorbidity, was predictive of mortality among older persons aged 80 years and older. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):752–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.007.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Wilkowska W, Offermann-van Heek J, Brauner P, Ziefle M. Wind of Change? Attitudes towards Aging and Use of Medical Technology. In: 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health 2019; Heraklion, Crete: SCITEPRESS, p. 80–91. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007693000800091.

22.

Robertson DA, King-Kallimanis BL, Kenny RA. Negative perceptions of aging predict longitudinal decline in cognitive function. Psychol Aging. 2016;1(1):71–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000061.CrossRef

23.

Ng TP, Feng L, Nyunt MSZ, Feng L, Niti M, Tan BY, Yap KB. Nutritional, physical, cognitive, and combination interventions and frailty reversal among older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med. 2015;128(11):1225–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.06.017.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nicholson NR. A review of social isolation: an important but underassessed condition in older adults. J Primary Prevent. 2012;33:137–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-012-0271-2.CrossRef

25.

Fugate Woods N, LaCroix AZ, Gray SL, Aragaki A, Cochrane BB, Brunner RL, Newman AB. Frailty: emergence and consequences in women aged 65 and older in the women’s health initiative observational study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(8):1321–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53405.x.CrossRef

26.

Poulin MJ, Haase CM. Growing to trust. Soc Psychol Person Sci. 2015;6(6):614–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615574301.CrossRef

27.

Kuh D, Karunananthan S, Bergman H, Cooper R. A life-course approach to healthy ageing: maintaining physical capability. Proc Nutr Soc. 2014;73(2):237–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003923.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Wilkowska W, Offermann-van Heek J, Laurentius T, Bollheimer LC, Ziefle M. Insights into the older adults’ world: concepts of aging, care, and using assistive technology in late adulthood. Front Pub Health. 2021;9:653931. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.653931.CrossRef

29.

Shooshtari S, Menec V, Swift A, Tate R. Exploring ethno-cultural variations in how older Canadians define healthy aging: the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). J Aging Stud. 2020;52:100834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2020.100834.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Jang Y, Poon LW, Kim S-Y, Shin B-K. Self-perception of aging and health among older adults in Korea. J Aging Stud. 2004;18(4):485–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2004.06.001.CrossRef

31.

Schomakers EM, Offermann-van Heek J, Ziefle M. Attitudes Towards Aging and the Acceptance of ICT for Aging in Place. In: Zhou J, Salvendy G (editors). Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Acceptance, Communication and Participation. Springer, Cham; 2018. p.149–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92034-4_12

32.

Biermann H, Offermann-van Heek J, Himmel S, Ziefle M. Ambient assisted living as support for aging in place: quantitative users’ acceptance study on ultrasonic whistles. JMIR Aging. 2018;1(2):e11825. https://doi.org/10.2196/11825.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Wood C, Magnello ME, Jewell T. Measuring vitality. J R Soc Med. 1990;83(8):486–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107689008300.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Wood C. Mood change and perceptions of vitality: a comparison of the effects of relaxation, visualization and yoga. J R Soc Med. 1993;86(5):254–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768930860050.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Ryan RM, Frederick C. On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J Pers. 1997;65:529–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Lins L, Carvalho FM. SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: Scoping review. SAGE Open Med. 2016; 4. doi:2050312116671725.

37.

Blackman S, Matlo C, Bobrovitskiy C, Waldoch A, Fang ML, Jackson P, Mihailidis A, Nygard L, Astell A, Sixsmith A. Ambient assisted living technologies for aging well: a scoping review. J Intell Sys. 2016;25(1):55–69. https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2014-0136.CrossRef

38.

Santiago J, Cotto E, Jaimes LG, Vergara-Laurens I. Fall detection system for the elderly. In: IEEE 7th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC). Las Vegas: NV, USA; 2017, pp. 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/CCWC.2017.7868363.

39.

Wu GE, Xue S. Portable preimpact fall detector with inertial sensors. IEEE T Neu Sys Rehab. 2008;16(2):178–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2007.916282.CrossRef

40.

Stone EE, Skubic M. Fall detection in homes of older adults using the microsoft kinect. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2014;19(1):290–301. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2014.2312180.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Cheng J, Chen X, Shen M. A framework for daily activity monitoring and fall detection based on surface electromyography and accelerometer signals. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2012;17(1):38–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2012.2226905.CrossRef

42.

van den Berg N, Schumann M, Kraft K, Hoffmann W. Telemedicine and telecare for older patients–a systematic review. Maturitas. 2012;73(2):94–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.06.010.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Pollack ME, Brown L, Colbry D, McCarthy CE, Orosz C, Peintner B, Ramakrishnan S, Tsamardinos I. Autominder: an intelligent cognitive orthotic system for people with memory impairment. Robot Auton Sys. 2003;44(3–4):273–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(03)00077-0.CrossRef

44.

Suzuki T, Murase S, Tanaka T, Okazawa T. New approach for the early detection of dementia by recording in-house activities. Telemed E-Health. 2007;13(1):41–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2006.0033.CrossRef

45.

Hayes TL, Abendroth F, Adami A, Pavel M, Zitzelberger TA, Kaye JA. Unobtrusive assessment of activity patterns associated with mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2008;4(6):395–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2008.07.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci. 1989;35(8):982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.CrossRef

47.

Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man Machine Studies. 1993;38(3):475–87.CrossRef

48.

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–78. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022.CrossRef

49.

Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012;36(1):157–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.CrossRef

50.

Ammenwerth E. Technology acceptance models in health informatics: TAM and UTAUT. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;263:64–71. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190111.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Gövercin M, Meyer S, Schellenbach M, Steinhagen-Thiessen E, Weiss B, Haesner M. SmartSenior@ home: acceptance of an integrated ambient assisted living system. Results of a clinical field trial in 35 households. Inform Health Social Care. 2016;41(4):430–47. https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2015.1064425.CrossRef

52.

Sixsmith A, Meuller S, Lull F, Klein M, Bierhoff I, Delaney S, Savage R. SOPRANO–an ambient assisted living system for supporting older people at home. In: Mokhtari M, Khalil I, Bauchet J, Zhang D, Nugent C (editors). Ambient Assistive Health and Wellness Management in the Heart of the City. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2009. p. 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02868-7_30

53.

Siegel C, Hochgatterer A, Dorner TE. Contributions of ambient assisted living for health and quality of life in the elderly and care services-a qualitative analysis from the experts’ perspective of care service professionals. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14(1):112. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-14-112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Jaschinski C, Allouch SB. Listening to the ones who care: exploring the perceptions of informal caregivers towards ambient assisted living applications. J Ambient Intell Human Comput. 2019;10(2):761–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0856-6.CrossRef

55.

Wilkowska W. Acceptance of eHealth Technology in Home Environments: Advanced Studies on User Diversity in Ambient Assisted Living. Aachen: Apprimus Verlag; 2015.

56.

Offermann-van Heek J, Ziefle M. Nothing else matters! Trade-offs between perceived benefits and barriers of AAL technology usage. Front Public Health. 2019;7:134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00134.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, Adams AE, Charness N, Czaja SJ, Dijkstra K, Fisk AD, Rogers WA, Sharit J. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(6):1710–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020.CrossRef

58.

Jaschinski C, Allouch SB. An extended view on benefits and barriers of ambient assisted living solutions. Int J Adv Life Sci. 2015;7(1–2):40–53.

59.

Demiris G, Hensel BK, Skubic M, Rantz M. Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(1):120–4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462307080154.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Courtney KL, Demiris G, Rantz M, Skubic M. Needing smart home technologies: the perspectives of older adults in continuing care retirement communities. Form Prim Care. 2008;16(3):195–201. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v16i3.694.CrossRef

61.

Winkler S, Schieber M, Lücke S, Heinze P, Schweizer T, Wegertseder D, Koehler F. A new telemonitoring system intended for chronic heart failure patients using mobile telephone technology—feasibility study. Int J Cardio. 2011;153(1):55–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.08.038.CrossRef

62.

Coquart JB, Le Rouzic O, Racil G, Wallaert B, Grosbois JM. Real-life feasibility and effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring medical equipment. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:3549–56. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S150827.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Mitsides N, Keane DF, Lindley E, Mitra S. Technology innovation for patients with kidney disease. J Med Eng Technol. 2014;39(7):424–33. https://doi.org/10.3109/03091902.2015.1088089.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Norup M, Paci E, Van der Wal G, Van der Maas PJ. End-of-life decision-making in six European countries: descriptive study. The Lancet. 2003;362(9381):345–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14019-6.CrossRef

65.

Kwak J, Haley WE. Current research findings on end-of-life decision making among racially or ethnically diverse groups. Gerontologist. 2005;45(5):634–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/45.5.634.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Winter L, Parker B. Current health and preferences for life-prolonging treatments: an application of prospect theory to end-of-life decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(8):1695–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.06.012.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Cook I, Kirkup AL, Langham LJ, Malik MA, Marlow G, Sammy I. End of life care and do not resuscitate orders: how much does age influence decision making? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017;3:2333721417713422. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721417713422.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Infurna FJ, Gerstorf D, Lachman ME. Midlife in the 2020s: opportunities and challenges. Am Psychol. 2020;75(4):470. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000591.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

69.

Barrett AE. Socioeconomic status and age identity: the role of dimensions of health in the subjective construction of age. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2003;58:101–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.2.S101.CrossRef

70.

Hubley AM, Russell LB. Prediction of subjective age, desired age, and age satisfaction in older adults: do some health dimensions contribute more than others? Int J Behav Develop. 2009;33:12–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025408099486.CrossRef

71.

Offermann-van Heek J, Schomakers EM, Ziefle M. Bare necessities? How the need for care modulates the acceptance of ambient assisted living technologies. Int J Med Inform. 2019;127:147–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.04.025.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.

Title: How age and health status impact attitudes towards aging and technologies in care: a quantitative analysis
Authors: Julia Offermann
Wiktoria Wilkowska
Thea Laurentius
L. Cornelius Bollheimer
Martina Ziefle
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Geriatrics / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2318
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04616-4

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Informal carers’ experiences in everyday life and the use of digital assistive technology for time management in persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment

Rhabdomyolysis in older adults: outcomes and prognostic factors

Evaluation of an exercise program incorporating an international cycling competition: a multimodal intervention model for physical, psychological, and social wellbeing in residential aged care

The relationship and pathways between resting-state EEG, physical function, and cognitive function in older adults

Effects of virtual reality versus motor imagery versus routine physical therapy in patients with parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled trial

The association between ultra-processed food intake and age-related hearing loss: a cross-sectional study

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials