Bridging the digital divide in older adults: A study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies

Clinical Interventions in Aging

Volumn 10, Issue , 2015, Pages 193-201

  Wu, Ya Huei ^a,b   Damnée, Souad ^a,b   Kerhervé, Hélène ^a,b   Ware, Caitlin ^a,b   Rigaud, Anne Sophie ^a,b  

^a ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE HÔPITAUX DE PARIS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

Assistive technologies; Attitude; Digital divide; Gerontechnology; Technology acceptance; Technology adoption

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; COGNITION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; GERONTECHNOLOGY; GERONTOLOGY; HUMAN; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MALE; MASS COMMUNICATION; PHYSICAL CAPACITY; SOCIAL ADAPTATION; SOCIAL ATTITUDE; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; VERY ELDERLY; AGE; AGEISM; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; EDUCATION; INDEPENDENT LIVING; INFORMATION SEEKING; MIDDLE AGED; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PSYCHOLOGY; SELF HELP DEVICE;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGEISM; AGING; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDEPENDENT LIVING; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOR; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SELF-HELP DEVICES;

EID: 84921458730     PISSN: 11769092     EISSN: 11781998     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S72399     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Harrington TL, Harrington MK. Gerontechnology: Why and How. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Shaker; 2000.
2. Bouma H, Fozard JL, Bouwhuis DG, Taipale V. Gerontechnology in perspective. Gerontechnology. 2007;6(4):190–216.
3. Gaßner KS, Conrad M. ICT Enabled Independent Living for the Elderly: A Status-quo Analysis on Products and the Research Landscape in the Field of Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) in EU-27. Germany: IIT; 2010: 3897501600.
4. Pressler KA, Ferraro KF. Assistive device use as a dynamic acquisition process in later life. Gerontologist. 2010;50(3):371–381.
5. McCreadie C, Tinker A. The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc. 2005;25(1):91–110.
6. Olson KE, O’Brien MA, Rogers WA, Charness N. Diffusion of technol­ogy: frequency of use for younger and older adults. Ageing Int. 2011; 36(1):123–145.
7. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, et al. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychol Aging. 2006;21(2):333.
8. Gombault V. L’internet de plus en plus prisé, l’internaute de plus en plus mobile: Conditions de vie des ménages. Paris: Insee; 2013.
9. Wu Y-H, Cristancho-Lacroix V, Fassert C, Faucounau V, de Rotrou J, Rigaud A-S. The attitudes and perceptions of older adults with mild cognitive impairment toward an assistive robot. J Appl Gerontol. In press 2014.
10. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press; 1962.
11. Heinz M, Martin P, Margrett JA, et al. Perceptions of technology among older adults. J Gerontol Nurs. 2013;39(1):42–51.
12. Kramer B. Dementia caregivers in Germany and their acceptance of new technologies for care: The information gap. Public Policy Aging Rep. 2014;24(1):32–34.
13. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Research practice settings: A case study approach. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999:71–88.
14. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
15. Guba EG, Lincoln Y. Fourth Generation Evaluation. California: Sage; 1989.
16. Rowe JW, Kahn RL. Successful aging. Gerontologist. 1997;37(4): 433–440.
17. Neice DC. Measures of Participation in the Digital Technostructure: Internet Access. Brighton: University of Sussex, SPRU; 1998.
18. Docampo Rama M, Ridder Hd, Bouma H. Technology generation and age in using layered user interfaces. Gerontechnology. 2001;1(1): 25–40.
19. Mahmood A, Yamamoto T, Lee M, Steggell C. Perceptions and use of gerotechnology: Implications for aging in place. J Housing Elderly. 2008;22(1–2):104–126.
20. Melenhorst AS, Rogers WA, Bouwhuis DG. Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selec­tivity. Psychol Aging. 2006;21(1):190–195.
21. Chen K, Chan AH-S. Use or non-use of gerontechnology – a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(10):4645–4666.
22. Boise L, Wild K, Mattek N, Ruhl M, Dodge HH, Kaye J. Willingness of older adults to share data and privacy concerns after exposure to unob­trusive in-home monitoring. Gerontechnology. 2013;11(3):428–435.
23. Parker SJ, Jessel S, Richardson JE, Reid MC. Older adults are mobile too! Identifying the barriers and facilitators to older adults’ use of mHealth for pain management. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:43.
24. McLean A. Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: Cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues. Ethics Inf Technol. 2011;13(4):313–326.
25. Wu Y-H, Wrobel J, Cornuet M, Kerhervé H, Damnée S, Rigaud A-S. Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human – robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:801–811.
26. Charness N, Boot WR. Aging and information technology use potential and barriers. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009;18(5):253–258.
27. Elliot AJ, Mooney CJ, Douthit KZ, Lynch MF. Predictors of older adults’ technology use and its relationship to depressive symptoms and well-being. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2013;69(5):667–677.
28. Sharit J, Czaja SJ, Nair S, Lee CC. Effects of age, speech rate, and environmental support in using telephone voice menu systems. Hum Factors. 2003;45(2):234–251.
29. Jung Y, Peng W, Moran M, et al. Low-income minority seniors’ enroll­ment in a cybercafé: psychological barriers to crossing the digital divide. Educ Gerontol. 2010;36(3):193–212.
30. Ellis RD, Allaire JC. Modeling computer interest in older adults: the role of age, education, computer knowledge, and computer anxiety. Hum Factors. 1999;41(3):345–355.
31. Selwyn N, Gorard S, Furlong J, Madden L. Older adults’ use of infor­mation and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing Soc. 2003;23(5):561–582.
32. Heart T, Kalderon E. Older adults: are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? Int J Med Inf. 2011;82(11):e209–e231.
33. Woodward AT, Freddolino PP, Wishart DJ, et al. Outcomes from a peer tutor model for teaching technology to older adults. Ageing Soc. 2013;33(8):1315–1338.
34. Xie B, Bugg JM. Public library computer training for older adults to access high-quality Internet health information. Libr Inform Sci Res. 2009;31(3):155–162.
35. Lagana L, Oliver T, Ainsworth A, Edwards M. Enhancing computer self-efficacy and attitudes in multi-ethnic older adults: A randomised controlled study. Ageing Soc. 2011;31(6):911–933.
36. Irizarry C, Downing A, West D. Promoting modern technology and internet access for under-represented older populations. J Technol Hum Serv. 2002;19(4):13–30.
37. Story MF. Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design. Assist Technol. 1998;10(1):4–12.
38. Deardorff CJ, Birdsong C. Universal design: Clarifying a common vocabulary. Housing Soc. 2003;30(2):119–138.
39. Audirac I. Accessing transit as universal design. J Plann Lit. 2008; 23(1):4–16.
40. Karlsson E, Axelsson K, Zingmark K, Sävenstedt S. The challenge of coming to terms with the use of a new digital assistive device: A case study of two persons with mild dementia. Open Nurs J. 2011; 5:102–110.
41. Blackman T. Care robots for the supermarket shelf: a product gap in assistive technologies. Ageing Soc. 2013;1(1):1–19.
42. Gucher C. Technologies du «Bien vieillir et du lien social»: Questions d’acceptabilité, enjeux de sens et de questions d’acceptabilité, enjeux de sens et de continuité de l’existence-la canne et le brise-vitre. Géron­tologie et Société. 2012;141:27–39.
43. Parette P, Scherer M. Assistive technology use and stigma. Educ Train Dev Disab. 2004;39(3):217–226.
44. Peeters JM, de Veer AJ, van der Hoek L, Francke AL. Factors influenc­ing the adoption of home telecare by elderly or chronically ill people: A national survey. J Clin Nurs. 2012;21:3183–3193.