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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
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.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Geriatrics
Published in: BMC Geriatrics 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

The impact of assistive devices on community-dwelling older adults and their informal caregivers: a systematic review

Authors: Keshini Madara Marasinghe, Ashok Chaurasia, Maisha Adil, Qian Yue Liu, Teeyaa Ibrahim Nur, Mark Oremus

Published in: BMC Geriatrics | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the impact of assistive devices on the life satisfaction of (Research Question 1), and informal caregiving hours received by (Research Question 2), community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years).

Methods

We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Scopus from database inception to March 2022. For each question, two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted and narratively synthesized the data, and assessed article quality and strength of evidence.

Results

Of the 1391 citations screened, we found two articles pertaining to each question, for a total of four articles. In general, assistive device use was not associated with life satisfaction, while it was positively associated with informal caregiving hours. However, the risk of bias was serious across the two studies for Research Question 1, and the overall quality of evidence was “very low”. The risk of bias was not serious across the two studies included in Research Question 2 and the overall quality of evidence was “moderate”.

Conclusion

Due to the scarcity of studies, the limitations of existing studies (i.e., risk of bias), and the evidence being moderate or very low quality, we could not draw firm conclusions about the associations of interest. Additional research will produce a better understanding of the two relationships and provide further evidence to inform policy decisions regarding the provision and funding of assistive devices for community-dwelling older adults.

Trial registration

This systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database of systematic reviews (identification number: CRD42021248929).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Löfqvist C, Nygren C, Széman Z, Iwarsson S. Assistive devices among very old people in five European countries. Scand J Occup Ther. 2005;12(4):181–92.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Roelands M, Van Oost P, Depoorter A, Buysse A. A social-cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. Gerontologist. 2002;42(1):39–50.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mann WC, Ottenbacher KJ, Fraas L, Tomita M, Granger CV. Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. A randomized controlled trial. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8(3):210–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
8.
9.
McConatha D, McConatha JT, Dermigny R. The use of interactive computer services to enhance the quality of life for long-term care residents. Gerontologist. 1994;34(4):553–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Marasinghe KM, Lapitan JM, Ross A. Assistive technologies for ageing populations in six low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMJ Innov. 2015;1(4):182–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
13.
Foreman KJ, Marquez N, Dolgert A, et al. Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016–40 for 195 countries and territories. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):2052–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Cao X, Hou Y, Zhang X, et al. A comparative, correlate analysis and projection of global and regional life expectancy, healthy life expectancy, and their GAP: 1995-2025. J Glob Health. 2020;10(2):020407.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–5.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Diener E, Chan MY. Happy people live longer: subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2011;3(1):1–43.CrossRef
18.
Rosella LC, Fu L, Buajitti E, Goel V. Death and chronic disease risk associated with poor life satisfaction: a population-based cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(2):323–31.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
21.
Williams GM. Life satisfaction and associated predictors in an older adult population. M.Sc. Langley Township: Trinity Western University; 2020.
22.
23.
Massey B, Edwards A, Musikanski L. Life satisfaction, affect, and belonging in older adults. Appl Res Qual Life. 2021;16(3):1205–19.CrossRef
24.
Kim ES, Kubzansky LD, Smith J. Life satisfaction and use of preventive health care services. Health Psychol. 2015;34(7):779–82.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kim E, Delaney S, Tay L, Chen Y, Diener E, Vanderweele T. Life satisfaction and subsequent physical, behavioral, and psychosocial health in older adults. Milbank Q. 2021;99(1):209–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Jutai JW, Fuhrer MJ, Demers L, Scherer MJ, DeRuyter F. Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(4):294–302.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
29.
Mortensen J, Dich N, Lange T, et al. Weekly hours of informal caregiving and paid work, and the risk of cardiovascular disease. Eur J Pub Health. 2018;28(4):743–7.CrossRef
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Konerding U, Bowen T, Forte P, et al. Do caregiver characteristics affect caregiver burden differently in different countries? Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Dement. 2019;34(3):148–52.CrossRef
35.
36.
Turner A, Findlay L. Informal caregiving for seniors. Health Rep. 2012;23(3):33–6.PubMed
37.
Ysseldyk R, Kuran N, Powell S, Villeneuve PJ. Original quantitative research self-reported health impacts of caregiving by age and income among participants of the Canadian 2012 general social survey. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2019;39(5):169–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Fredman L, Cauley JA, Satterfield S, et al. Caregiving and risk of mortality and functional decline in white and black elderly adults: findings from the health ABC study. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2154–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Loi SM, Dow B, Moore K, et al. Factors associated with depression in older carers. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;31(3):294–301.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Oliveira DC, Vass C, Aubeeluck A. The development and validation of the dementia quality of life scale for older family Carers (DQoL-OC). Aging Ment Health. 2018;22(5):709–16.CrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
Tuazon JR, Jutai JW. Toward guidelines for reporting assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(7):702–11.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
45.
Wong JN, McAuley E, Trinh L. Physical activity programming and counseling preferences among cancer survivors: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Moskalewicz A, Oremus M. No clear choice between Newcastle–Ottawa scale and appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;120:94–103.CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
49.
Brandt A, Iwarsson S, Stahl A. Satisfaction with rollators among community-living users: a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(7):343–53.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Wisniewski P, Linton C, Chokshi A, Perlingieri B, Gurupur V, Gabriel M. We have built it, but they have not come: examining the adoption and use of assistive Technologies for Informal Family Caregivers. In: Ahram TZ, Falcão C, editors. Advances in usability, user experience and assistive technology. Advances in intelligent systems and computing. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 824–36.
51.
Lee I, Kim J. The effect of assistive devices and appliances on life satisfaction among the elderly. Social Welfare Policy. 2008;33(6):477–99.
52.
Leung V, Colantonio A, Santaguida PL. Wheelchair use, pain, and satisfaction with life in a national sample of older adults. Gerontechnology. 2005;3(3):159–64.CrossRef
53.
Agree EM, Freedman VA, Cornman JC, Wolf DA, Marcotte JE. Reconsidering substitution in long-term care: when does assistive technology take the place of personal care? J Gerontol B Psycholo Sci Soc Sci. 2005;60(5):S272–80.CrossRef
54.
Hoenig H, Taylor DH, Sloan FA. Does assistive technology substitute for personal assistance among the disabled elderly? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(2):330–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Metadata
Title
The impact of assistive devices on community-dwelling older adults and their informal caregivers: a systematic review
Authors
Keshini Madara Marasinghe
Ashok Chaurasia
Maisha Adil
Qian Yue Liu
Teeyaa Ibrahim Nur
Mark Oremus
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Geriatrics / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2318
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03557-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Geriatrics 1/2022 Go to the issue

Research

Associations among drinking water quality, dyslipidemia, and cognitive function for older adults in China: evidence from CHARLS

Research

Rural-urban differences in food insecurity and associated cognitive impairment among older adults: findings from a nationally representative survey

Research

Falls, healthcare resources and costs in older adults with insomnia treated with zolpidem, trazodone, or benzodiazepines

Research

Effects of food neophobia and oral health on the nutritional status of community-dwelling older adults

Research

A multi-level perspective on perceived unmet needs for home support in home-dwelling older adults in the Swiss context: a secondary data analysis of a population study

Research

Performance of the APOP-screener for predicting in-hospital mortality in older COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study
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

Read more

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
Image Credits