Gerotechnology: A new kind of care for aging? An analysis of the relationship between older people and technology

Nursing and Health Sciences

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 521-528

  Rodeschini, Giulia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Aging; Care; Cure; Elderly people; Gerotechnology; Technology

Indexed keywords

AGE; AGED; AGING; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CONCEPT FORMATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; GERIATRICS; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REVIEW; SOCIOLOGY;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGING; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CONCEPT FORMATION; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; GERIATRICS; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; PATIENT CARE TEAM; SOCIOLOGY;

EID: 82455168009     PISSN: 14410745     EISSN: 14422018     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2018.2011.00634.x     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Achembaum WA. Crossing Frontiers: Gerontology Emerges as a Science. New York: Columbia University, 1995.
2. Binstock RH, George LK (eds). Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (1st edn). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, 1976.
3. Binstock RH, George LK (eds). Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (4th edn). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, 1996.
4. Binstock RH, George LK (eds). Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (5th edn). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2001.
5. Binstock RH, George LK (eds). Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (6th edn). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2006.
6. Blaschke CM, Freddolino PP, Mullen EE. Ageing and technology: a review of the research literature. Br. J. Soc. Work 2009; 39: 641-656.
7. Blythe MA, Monk AF, Doughty K. Socially dependable design: the challenge of ageing populations for HCI. Interact. Comput. 2005; 17: 672-689.
8. Bruni A, Gherardi S. Studiare le pratiche lavorative (Studying Working Practices). Bologna: Il Mulino, 2007.
9. Cheek O, Nikpour L, Nowlin HD. Aging well with smart technology. Nurs. Adm. Q. 2005; 29: 329-338.
10. Coulson I. Introduction: technological challenges for gerontologists in the 21st century. Educ. Gerontol. 2000; 26: 307-315.
11. Cutler SJ. Ageism and technology. Generations 2005; 29: 67-72.
12. Cutler SJ. Technological change and aging. In: Binstock RH, George LK (eds). Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (6th edn). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2006; 258-276.
13. Cutler SJ, Hendricks J. Emerging social trends. In: Binstock RH, George LK (eds). Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (5th edn). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2001; 462-480.
14. Cutler SJ, Hendricks J, Guyer A. Age differences in home computer availability and use. J. Gerontol. Soc. Sci. 2003; 58: 271-280.
15. Czaja SJ, Lee CC. The impact of the internet on older adults. In: Charness NeSKW (ed.). The Impact of Technology on Successful Aging. New York: Springer Publishing, 2003; 113-133.
16. Dickinson A, Eisma R, Gregor P, Syme A, Milne S. Strategies for teaching older people to use the world wide web. Universal Access Inf. Soc. 2005; 4: 3-15.
17. Ellis R, Allaire J. Modelling computer interest in older adults: the role of age, education, computer knowledge, and computer anxiety. Hum. Factors 1999; 41: 345-355.
18. Forlizzi J, DiSalvo C, Gemperle F. Assistive robotics and an ecology of elders living independently in their homes. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2004; 19: 25-59.
19. Fozard JL, Rietsema J, Bouma H, Graafmans JAM. Gerotechnology: creating enabling environments for the challenges and opportunities of aging. Educ. Gerontol. 2000; 26: 331-344.
20. Gherardi S. Introduzione [Introduction]. In: Gherardi S, Strati A (eds). Telemedicina. Fra tecnologia e organizzazione [Telemedicine. Between Technology and Organization]. Roma: Carocci, 2004; 9-18 (in Italian).
21. Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations 1995; 19: 41-46.
22. Gitlin LN, Luborsky M, Schemm R. Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist 1998; 38: 169-180.
23. Goodman J, Lundell J. HCI and the older population. Interact. Comput. 2005; 17: 613-620.
24. Gunny P. Gerontology researchers sharpen focus but face more complex challenges as 21st century looms. J. Am. Med. Associations 1995; 273: 1322-1325.
25. Hartke R, Prohaska T, Furner S. Older adults and assistive devices: use, multiple-devices use, and need. J. Aging Health 1998; 10: 99-116.
26. Mahmood A, Yamamoto T, Lee M, Steggell C. Perceptions and use of gerotechnology: implications for aging in place. J. Housing Elder. 2008; 22: 104-126.
27. Mann WC, Belchior P, Tomita MR, Kempt BJ. Computer use by middle-ages and older adults with disabilities. Technol. Disabil. 2005; 17: 1-9.
28. Mathieson K, Kronenfield J, Keith B. Maintaining functional independence in elderly adults: the role of health status and financial resources in predicting home modifications and use of mobility equipment. Gerontologist 2002; 42: 24-31.
29. McCreadie C, Tinker A. The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc. 2005; 25: 91-110.
30. Melenhorst AS, Rogers W, Bouwhuis DB. Older adults' motivated choice for technological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychol. Aging 2006; 21: 190-195.
31. Menachemi N, Burke DE, Ayers DJ. Factors affecting the adoptions of telemedicine--a multiple adopter perspective. J. Med. Syst. 2004; 28: 617-632.
32. Mollenkopf H. Aging and technology--social science approaches. In: Burdick D, Kwon S (eds). Gerotechnology: Research and Practice in Technology and Aging. New York: Springer, 2004; 54-70.
33. Morrell RW. : the process of construction and revision in the development of a model web site for use by older adults. Universal Access Inf. Soc. 2005; 4: 24-38.
34. Osman Z, Poulson D, Nicolle C. Introducing computers and the internet to older users: findings from the care online project. Universal Access Inf. Soc. 2005; 4: 16-23.
35. Pollack ME. Intelligent technology for an aging population. AI Magazine 2005; Summer: 9-24.
36. Putney NM, Alley DE, Bengston VL. Social gerontology as public sociology in action. The American Sociologist 2005; 36: 88-104.
37. Pynoos J, Golant S. Housing and living arrangements for the elderly. In: Binstock RH, George LK (eds). Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (1st edn). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press, 1996; 303-325.
38. Schieber F. Human factors and aging: identifying and compensating for age-related deficits in sensory and cognitive functions. In: Charness N, Schaie KW (eds). The Impact of Technology on Successful Aging. New York: Sprinter Publishing, 2003; 42-84.
39. Sharit J, Czaja S, Nair S, Lee C. Effects of age, speech rate, and environmental support in using telephone voice menu systems. Hum. Factors 2003; 45: 234-251.
40. Sixsmith AJ. An evaluation of an intelligent home monitoring system. J. Telemed. Telecare 2000; 6: 63-72.
41. Suchman L, Blomberg J, Orr JE, Trigg R. Reconstructing technologies as social practice. Am. Behav. Sci. 1999; 43: 392-408.
42. Timmermans S, Berg M. The practice of medical technology. Sociol. Health Illn. 2003; 25: 97-114.
43. Wahl HW. Research on living arrangements in old age for what? In: Schaie KW, Wahl HW, Mollenkopf H, Oswald F (eds). Aging Independently. New York: Springer, 2003; 246-272.
44. Wahl HW, Mollenkopf H. Impact of everyday technology in the home environment on older adults' quality of life. In: Charness N, Schaie KW (eds). The Impact of Technology on Successful Aging. New York: Sprinter Publishing, 2003; 215-241.
45. White J, Weatherall AA. Grounded theory analysis of older adults and information technology. Educ. Gerontol. 2000; 26: 371-386.
46. Zaphiris P, Kurniawan S, Ellis RD. Web and aging: challenges and opportunities. Universal Access Inf. Soc. 2005; 4: 1-2.