Technology to Support Aging in Place: Older Adults’ Perspectives

Abstract

The U.S. population over 65 years of age is increasing. Most older adults prefer to age in place, and technologies, including Internet of things (IoT), Ambient/Active Assisted Living (AAL) robots and other artificial intelligence (AI), can support independent living. However, a top-down design process creates mismatches between technologies and older adults’ needs. A user-centered design approach was used to identify older adults’ perspectives regarding AAL and AI technologies and gauge interest in participating in a co-design process. A survey was used to obtain demographic characteristics and assess privacy perspectives. A convenience sample of 31 retirement community residents participated in one of two 90-min focus group sessions. The semi-structured group interview solicited barriers and facilitators to technology adoption, privacy attitudes, and interest in project co-design participation to inform technology development. Focus group sessions were audiotaped and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were reviewed and coded to identify themes and patterns. Descriptive statistics were applied to the quantitative data. Identified barriers to technology use included low technology literacy, including lack of familiarity with terminology, and physical challenges, which can make adoption difficult. Facilitators included an eagerness to learn, interest in co-design, and a desire to understand and control their data. Most participants identified as privacy pragmatics and fundamentalists, indicating that privacy is important to older adults. At the same time, they also reported a willingness to contribute to the design of technologies that would facilitate aging independently. There is a need to increase technology literacy of older adults along with aging literacy of technologists.

References 34

1. 1.

   Woolhead G., Calnan M., Dieppe P., Tadd W. Dignity in older age: What do older people in the United Kingdom think? Age Ageing. 2004;33:165-170.

   Not in our library10.1093/ageing/afh045

2. 2.

   Eckert J.K., Morgan L.A., Swamy N. Preferences for receipt of care among community-dwelling adults. J. Aging Soc. Policy. 2004;16:49-65.

   Not in our library10.1300/j031v16n02_04

3. 3.

   Matsumoto H., Naruse T., Sakai M., Nagata S. Who prefers to age in place? Cross-sectional survey of middle-aged people in Japan. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2016;16:631-637.

   Not in our library10.1111/ggi.12503

4. 4.

   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;30:136-142.

   Not in our library10.1111/j.1741-6612.2010.00469.x

5. 5.

   Ball M.M., Perkins M.M., Whittington F.J., Connell B.R., Hollingsworth C., King S.V., Elrod C.L., Combs B.L. Managing Decline in Assisted Living: The Key to Aging in Place. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2004;59:S202-S212.

   Not in our library10.1093/geronb/59.4.s202

6. 6.

   Diehr P.H., Thielke S.M., Newman A.B., Hirsch C., Tracy R. Decline in health for older adults: Five-year change in 13 key measures of standardized health. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2013;68:1059-1067.

   Not in our library10.1093/gerona/glt038

7. 7.

   González-Colaço Harmand M., Meillon C., Rullier L., Avila-Funes J.-A., Bergua V., Dartigues J.-F., Amieva H. Cognitive decline after entering a nursing home: A 22-year follow-up study of institutionalized and noninstitutionalized elderly people. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2014;15:504-508.

   Not in our library10.1016/j.jamda.2014.02.006

8. 8.

   Task Force on Research and Development for Technology to Support Aging Adults. Emerging Technologies to Support an Aging Population. 2019.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Mihailidis A., Carmichael B., Boger J. The use of computer vision in an intelligent environment to support aging-in-place, safety, and independence in the home. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2004;8:238-247.

   Not in our library10.1109/titb.2004.834386

10. 10.

    Cody M.J., Dunn D., Hoppin S., Wendt P. Silver surfers: Training and evaluating internet use among older adult learners. Commun. Educ. 1999;48:269-286.

    Not in our library10.1080/03634529909379178

11. 11.

    Chiu C.-J., Hu Y.-H., Lin D.-C., Chang F.-Y., Chang C.-S., Lai C.-F. The attitudes, impact, and learning needs of older adults using apps on touchscreen mobile devices: Results from a pilot study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016;63:189-197.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.020

12. 12.

    Wang J., Carroll D., Peck M., Myneni S., Gong Y. Mobile and Wearable Technology Needs for Aging in Place: Perspectives from Older Adults and Their Caregivers and Providers. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 2016;225:486-490.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Hoque R., Sorwar G. Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: An extension of the UTAUT model. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2017;101:75-84.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.002

14. 14.

    Aging Well in the 21st Century: Strategic Directions for Research on Aging.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Khosravi P., Ghapanchi A.H. Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2016;85:17-26.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.05.014

16. 16.

    Peek S.T.M., Wouters E.J.M., Luijkx K.G., Vrijhoef H.J.M. What it Takes to Successfully Implement Technology for Aging in Place: Focus Groups with Stakeholders. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016;18:e98.

    Not in our library10.2196/jmir.5253

17. 17.

    Renaud K., Karen B.J. Judy Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: A qualitative study. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. Volume 338.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Lorenz A., Oppermann R. Mobile health monitoring for the elderly: Designing for diversity. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2009;5:478-495.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pmcj.2008.09.010

19. 19.

    Iwaya L.H., Gomes M.A.L., Simplício M.A., Carvalho T.C.M.B., Dominicini C.K., Sakuragui R.R.M., Rebelo M.S., Gutierrez M.A., Näslund M., Håkansson P. Mobile health in emerging countries: A survey of research initiatives in Brazil. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2013;82:283-298.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.01.003

20. 20.

    Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches, Second Edition.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    Scandurra I., Sjölinder M. Participatory Design with Seniors: Design of Future Services and Iterative Refinements of Interactive eHealth Services for Old Citizens. Med. 2.0. 2013;2:e12.

    Not in our library10.2196/med20.2729

22. 22.

    Ritter F.E., Baxter G.D., Churchill E.F. Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems: What System Designers Need to Know about People. 2014.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Zarem J.E. Today’s Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). 2010.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    Kumaraguru P., Cranor L.F. Privacy Indexes: A Survey of Westin’s Studies. 2005.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Malhotra N.K., Kim S.S., Agarwal J. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2004;15:336-355.

    Not in our library10.1287/isre.1040.0032

26. 26.

    Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. 1967.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Willms D.G., Best J.A., Taylor D.W., Gilbert J.R., Wilson D.M.C., Lindsay E.A., Singer J. A Systematic Approach for Using Qualitative Methods in Primary Prevention Research. Med. Anthropol. Q. 1990;4:391-409.

    Not in our library10.1525/maq.1990.4.4.02a00020

28. 28.

    Golko A., Jol E., Schmidt M., Terlizzi J. Dual Orientation Connector with Exteral Contacts and Conductive Frame. U.S. Patent. 2013.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    Elueze I., Quan-Haase A. Privacy Attitudes and Concerns in the Digital Lives of Older Adults: Westin’s Privacy Attitude Typology Revisited. Am. Behav. Sci. 2018;62:1372-1391.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    Westin A.F. Intrusions Privacy tradeoffs in a free society. Public Perspect. 2000;11:8.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    Melenhorst A.-S., Rogers W.A., Caylor E.C. The Use of Communication Technologies by Older Adults: Exploring the Benefits from the User’s Perspective. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2001;45:221-225.

    Not in our library10.1177/154193120104500305

32. 32.

    Jeste D.V., Blazer D.G., Buckwalter K.C., Cassidy K.-L.K., Fishman L., Gwyther L.P., Levin S.M., Phillipson C., Rao R.R., Schmeding E., et al. Age-Friendly Communities Initiative: Public Health Approach to Promoting Successful Aging. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry. 2016;24:1158-1170.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jagp.2016.07.021

33. 33.

    Davidson J.L., Jensen C. What Health Topics Older Adults Want to Track: A Participatory Design Study. Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 2013;26:1-26:8.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    Spinuzzi C. The Methodology of Participatory Design. Tech. Commun. 2005;52:163-174.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 2

• Health Impacts of the Stay-at-Home Order on Community-Dwelling Older Adults and How Technologies May Help: Focus Group Study · 2021
  Not checked
• Are we ready for artificial intelligence health monitoring in elder care? · 2020
  Not checked

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.