Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

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.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Matching gerontechnologies to independent-living seniors’ individual needs: development of the GTM tool

Authors: Marc Haufe, Sebastiaan Theodorus Michaël Peek, Katrien Ger Luijkx

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Most seniors wish to live independently for as long as possible. Gerontechnologies such as personal alarms or remote control systems, have the potential to help them age in place. For seniors, assessing what is the most appropriate technology for their aging in place needs can be difficult. Professionals specifically tasked with matching seniors’ needs with technology solutions can greatly help here. Yet not much is known about the challenges these professionals face or how they can optimize their matchmaking service.

Methods

Participatory action research was conducted in the Netherlands, in two phases. In phase one, ten matchmaking dialogues between municipal technology consultants and seniors were observed, followed by interviews with both technology consultants and seniors to understand the current matchmaking service. In phase two, a new matchmaking tool was co-created with technology consultants and other professionals over the course of four co-creation session. Variants of the tool were tested out in nine additional matchmaking dialogues. The Cycle of Technology Acquirement by Independent-Living Seniors (C-TAILS) model, which can be used to understand both origins and consequences of technology acquirement by independent-living seniors, was used as a theoretical lens.

Results

Important challenges for municipal technology consultants in their current matchmaking practice are: making the matchmaking service more demand oriented and creating an accurate and complete overview of relevant factors within the seniors’ individual situation so that an optimal match can be made. Together with technology consultants and other professionals, a new Gerontechnologies Matchmaking (GTM) tool was created to help overcome these challenges. Evaluation of the tool showed that it better includes each senior’s personal, social, physical and technological context, within the matchmaking service.

Conclusion

Professionals who help seniors match gerontechnology to their aging in place needs experience a variety of challenges in the delivery of their service. Currently, few tools are available for them to overcome these challenges. The newly developed GTM tool can help overcome challenges and optimize matchmaking services. Further testing of the tool in different contexts is needed to determine its generalizability.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Barret L. Healthy @ home 2.0. Washington, DC; 2011.
2.
Boldy D, Grenade L, Lewin G, Karol E, Burton E. Older people’s decisions regarding “ageing in place”: a Western Australian case study. Australas J Ageing. 2011;30:136–42.CrossRef
3.
Eckert JK, Morgan LA, Swamy N. Preferences for receipt of care among community-dwelling adults. J Aging Soc Policy. 2004;16:49–65.CrossRef
4.
Woolhead G, Calnan M, Dieppe P, Tadd W. Dignity in older age: what do older people in the United Kingdom think? Age Ageing. 2004;33:165–70.CrossRef
5.
Pynoos J, Caraviello R, Cicero C. Lifelong housing: the anchor in aging-friendly communities. Generations. 2009;33:26–32.
6.
Ball MM, Perkins MM, Whittington FJ, Connell BR, Hollingsworth C, King SV, et al. Managing decline in assisted living: the key to aging in place. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2004;59B:S202–12.CrossRef
7.
8.
Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Vrijhoef HJM, Nieboer ME, Aarts S, Van der Voort CS, et al. Origins and consequences of technology acquirement by independent-living Seniors : towards an integrative model. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:1–18.CrossRef
9.
Davey J, De Joux V, Nana G, Arcus M. Accommodation options for older people in Aotearoa / New Zealand. Centre for Housing Research Aotearoa/New Zealand; 2004.
10.
Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. World Health Organization: Geneva; 2007.
11.
Peek STM, Aarts S, Wouters EJM. Can smart home technology deliver on the promise of independent living? A critical reflection based on the perspectives of older adults. In: J. van Hoof, G. Demiris EW, editor. Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. 2016 p. 203–14.
12.
Agree EM. The potential for technology to enhance independence for those aging with a disability. Disabil Health J 2014;7 SUPPL 1:33–39.
13.
Reeder B, Meyer E, Lazar A, Chaudhuri S, Thompson HJ, Demiris G. Framing the evidence for health smart homes and home-based consumer health technologies as a public health intervention for independent aging: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82:565–79.CrossRef
14.
Goldman L, Wolf R. How can states support an aging Population ? Actions policymakers can take. Milbank memorial fund. 2016.
15.
Report to President on Independence, Technology, and connection in older age. President’s Council of Advisors on science and technology. 2016.
16.
Alm N, Gregor P, Newell AF. Older people and information technology are ideal partners. Int Conf Univers Des. October 2015;2002(100):754–60.
17.
Carmichael A, Rice M, MacMillan F. Investigating a DTV-based physical activity application to facilitate wellbeing in older adults. In: Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference. Dundee; 2010. p. 278–88.
18.
Doyle J, Skrba Z, McDonnell R, Arent B. Designing a touch screen communication device to support social interaction amongst older adults. In: Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference; 2010. p. 177–85.
19.
Peek STM, Wouters EJM, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJM. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:235–48.CrossRef
20.
Chen K, Chan AHS. Use or non-use of gerontechnology-a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10:4645–66.CrossRef
21.
Balta-Ozkan N, Davidson R, Bicket M, Whitmarsh L. Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy. 2013;63:363–74.CrossRef
22.
Mostaghel R. Innovation and technology for the elderly: systematic literature review. J Bus Res. 2016;69:4896–900.CrossRef
23.
Orlov LM. Technology for Aging in place 2016: market overview. Link-age Connect; 2016.
24.
European. Growing the European silver economy. European Commission; 2015.
25.
Ward G, Fielden S, Muir H, Holliday N, Urwin G. Developing the assistive technology consumer market for people aged 50-70. Ageing Soc. 2017;37.
26.
De WMO in Beweging 2010-2012. Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau; 2014.
27.
Hees S Van. The making of ageing-in-place perspectives on a Dutch social policy towards lifecycle-robust neighbourhoods. Maastricht University; 2017.
28.
Federici S, Corradi F, Meloni F, Borsci S, Mele ML, Dandini De Sylva S, et al. A Person-Centered Assistive Technology Service Delivery Model: a framework for device selection and assignment. Life Span Disabil. 2014;2:175–98.
29.
Gunter B. Understanding the older Consumerp the Grey market. J Consum Mark. 2000;17:268–70.
30.
Doyle J, Bailey C, Ni Scanaill C, van den Berg F. Lessons learned in deploying independent living technologies to older adults’ homes. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2014;13:191–204.
31.
Anne Nelson E, Dannefer D. Aged heterogeneity: fact or fiction? The fate of diversity in Gerontological research. Gerontologist. 1992;32:17–23.CrossRef
32.
Yang Y, Lee LC. Dynamics and heterogeneity in the process of human frailty and aging: evidence from the U.S. older adult population. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010;65 B:246–55.CrossRef
33.
Chopik WJ, Rikard RV, Cotten SR. Individual difference predictors of ICT use in older adulthood: a study of 17 candidate characteristics. Comput Human Behav. 2017;76:526–33.CrossRef
34.
van Boekel LC, Peek ST, Luijkx KG. Diversity in older adults’ use of the internet: identifying subgroups through latent class analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e180.CrossRef
35.
Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, Nieboer ME, Van Der Voort CS, Aarts S, et al. Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology. 2016;62:226–37.CrossRef
36.
Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, Bower P, Hirani S, Cartwright M, et al. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the whole system demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:220.CrossRef
37.
Kock N, Avison D, Malaurent J. Positivist information systems action research: methodological issues. J Manag Inf Syst. 2017;34:754–67.CrossRef
38.
McIntyre A. Participatory action research. London: Sage; 2008.
39.
Greenhalgh T, Jackson C, Shaw S, Janamina T. Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: literature review and case study. Millbank Q. 2016;94:392–429.CrossRef
40.
Freire K, Sangiorgi D. Service design & healthcare innovation : from consumption to co- production and co-creation. ServDes 2010 Second Nord Conf Serv Des Serv Innov. 2010;1–11.
41.
Huang HB. What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest? Action Res. 2010;8:93–109.CrossRef
42.
Fox M. Embodied Methodologies, Participation, and the Art of Research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2015;9:321–32.CrossRef
43.
Stickdorn M, Schneider J. This is service design thinking. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers; 2011.
44.
Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12:108.CrossRef
45.
Bushe G. Appreciative inquiry: theory and critique. In: The Routledge companion to organizational change; 2011. p. 87–103.
46.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in pscyhology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef
47.
48.
49.
Petermans J, Piau A. Gerontechnology: Don’t miss the train, but which is the right carriage? Eur Geriatr Med. 2017;8:281–3.CrossRef
50.
Bernd T, Van Der Pijl D, De Witte LP. Existing models and instruments for the selection of assistive technology in rehabilitation practice. Scand J Occup Ther. 2009;16:146–58.CrossRef
51.
Scherer MJ, Craddock G. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technol Disabil. 2002;14 October:125–31.
52.
Scherer MJ. The matching person and technology model. In: Sherer M. Connecting to learn: educational and assistive technology for people with disabilities. American Psychological Association; 2004. p. 183–201.
53.
Metadata
Title
Matching gerontechnologies to independent-living seniors’ individual needs: development of the GTM tool
Authors
Marc Haufe
Sebastiaan Theodorus Michaël Peek
Katrien Ger Luijkx
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3848-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Health Services Research 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Health literacy in Indigenous people with chronic disease living in remote Australia

Research article

Manifestations of verbal and physical violence towards doctors: a comparison between hospital and community doctors

Research article

Physician’s knowledge and opinions on human papillomavirus vaccination: a cross-sectional study, Saudi Arabia

Research article

Clinician dashboard views and improvement in preventative health outcome measures: a retrospective analysis

Research article

Knowledge, attitudes and practices on tuberculosis transmission and prevention among auxiliary healthcare professionals in three Brazilian high-burden cities: a cross-sectional survey

Research article

Reasons, perceived outcomes and characteristics of second-opinion seekers: are there differences in private vs. public settings?