Preferences for technology versus human assistance and control over technology in the performance of kitchen and personal care tasks in baby boomers and older adults

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 474-486

  Beach, Scott R ^a   Schulz, Richard ^a   Matthews, Judith T ^a   Courtney, Karen ^b   DeVito Dabbs, Annette ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Survey methods; Technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

AGE; AGED; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CAREGIVER; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DEVICES; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; REHABILITATION; SELF CARE; SELF HELP DEVICE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SOCIOECONOMICS;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CAREGIVERS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DISABLED PERSONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF CARE; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SEX FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 84911871496     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2013.832412     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Schulz R, editor-in-chief. Quality of life technology handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group; 2013.
2. Field M, Jette AM, editors. The future of disability in America. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2007.
3. Schulz R, Tompkins C. Informal caregivers in the United States: prevalence, caregiver characteristics and ability to provide care. In National Research Council, The role of human factors in home health care: Workshop summary. S. Olson, Rapporteur. Committee on the Role of Human Factors in Home Health Care, Committee on Human-Systems Integration. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2010:117-43.
4. Talley RC, Crews JE. Framing the public health of caregiving. Am J Public Health 2007;97:224-8.
5. Hersh WR, Hickam DH, Severance SM, et al. Diagnosis, access and outcomes: update of a systematic review of telemedicine services. J Telemed Telecare 2006;12:S2:3-31.
6. Pare G, Jaana M, Sicotte C. Systematic review of home telemonitoring for chronic diseases: the evidence base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:269-77.
7. Czaja S, Schulz R. Innovations in technology and aging: introduction. Generations 2006;30:6-8.
8. Helal S, Mounir M, Bessam A, editors. The engineering handbook of smart technology for aging, disability, and independence. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
9. Borsci S, Kurosu M, Mele ML, Federici S. Systemic user experience. In: Federici S, Scherer J, eds. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor Francis Group; 2012:337-60.
10. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989;13:219-39.
11. Or CKL, Karsh BT. A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Assoc 2009;16:550-60.
12. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging 2006;21:333-52.
13. Heart T, Kalderon E. Older adults: are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? Int J Med Inform 2011 Apr 8 [Epub ahead of print].
14. Hensel BK, Demiris G, Courtney KL. Defining obtrusiveness of home telehealth technologies: a conceptual framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:428-31.
15. Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Bailey Fausset C, et al. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav 2010;26:1710-21.
16. Olson KE, O'Brien MA, Rogers WA, Charness N. Diffusion of technology: frequency of use for younger and older adults. Ageing Int 2011;36:123-45.
17. Scherer M. Matching person & technology. A series of assessments for evaluating predispositions to and outcomes of technology use in rehabilitation, education, the workplace, & other settings. Webster (NY): The Institute for Matching Person & Technology, Inc.; 1998.
18. Scherer M, Sax CL, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1321-31.
19. Scherer M, Sax CL. Measures of assistive technology predisposition and use. In: Mpofu E, Oakland T, eds. Rehabilitation and health assessment: applying ICF guidelines. New York (NY): Springer; 2010:229-54.
20. Federici S, Scherer J, eds. Assistive technology assessment handbook. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor Francis Group; 2012.
21. Broadbent E, Stafford R, MacDonald B. Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. Int J Soc Rob 2009;1:319-30.
22. Ezer N, Fisk AD, Rogers WA. Attitudinal and intentional acceptance of domestic robots by younger and older adults. In: Stephanidis C, ed. Universal access in human-computer interaction. Part II. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2009:39-48.
23. Kahn Z. Attitudes towards intelligent service robots. Report Number: TRITA-NA-P9821, IPLab-154. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology; 1998.
24. Dautenhahn K, Woods S, Kaouri C, et al. What is a robot companion - friend, assistant, or butler? Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; 2005 Aug 2-6; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 1192-7 p.
25. Ezer N, Fisk AD, Rogers WA. More than a servant: self-reported willingness of younger and older adults to having a robot perform interactive and critical tasks in the home. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting; 2009 Oct 19-23; San Antonio, Texas, USA. 136-40 p.
26. Beach SR, Schulz R, Downs J, et al. Disability, age, and informational privacy attitudes in quality of life technology applications: results from a national web survey. ACM Trans Acces Comput (TACCESS) 2009;2:1-21.
27. Matthews JT, Beach SR, Downs J, et al. Preferences and concerns for quality of life technology among older adults and persons with disabilities; National Survey results. Technol Disabil 2010;22:5-15.
28. Beach S, Schulz R, Downs J, et al. End-user perspectives on privacy and other trade-offs in acceptance of quality of life technologies. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Quality of Life Technology; 2009 June 30-July 1; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
29. Beach S, Schulz R, Seelman K, et al. Trade-offs and tipping points in the acceptance of quality of life technologies: results from a survey of manual and power wheelchair users. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Quality of Life Technology; 2010 June 28-29; Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
30. Weinstein ND. Why it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychol 1984;3:431-57.
31. Weinstein ND, Klein WM. Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychol 1995;14:132-40.