Attitudes towards Technology: Insights on Rarely Discussed Influences on Older Adults’ Willingness to Adopt Active Assisted Living (AAL)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background: Active Assisted Living (AAL) Genesis and Research Policy Logics
1.2. Anthropological View on Ageing
- What fosters their willingness to spend money and rearrange their everyday lives (change in habits and or surroundings) in favour of introducing an assistive technology system that they perceive to be useful?
- What is their attitude towards more invasive technologies (such as sensors or microchip implants)?
2. Method
2.1. The Questionnaire and Its Background
- Willingness to undertake substantial changes in their everyday life or living environment and to invest in assistive technology in their homes, including the significance of AAL—active assisted living.
- Assessment of how their ageing is perceived (continuum/breaks) in itself and compared with others, as well as what their wishes and ideas are as they become older [29].
2.2. Framing of the Research Hypothesis
2.3. Procedure and Sample
2.4. Multivariate Regression
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.1.1. Socio-Economic Factors and Social Integration
3.1.2. Overall Quality of Life and Quality of Life Technology Benefits
3.1.3. Use of Technology
3.1.4. Health
3.1.5. Perspective on Getting Older
3.2. Multivariate Regression
4. Discussion
4.1. Major Events in Life and Technology and AAL Attitude
4.2. Technology Optimists and Pessimists Are Both Positively Triggered by Technology That Connects the User with a Real Person
5. Conclusions
- Our finding that major events in life are potentially raising older adults’ acceptance of changing their homes and introducing AAL aligns with the challenge of simplifying or even paternalising a complex user group.
- 2.
- Our finding that technology conveying real-life contacts within support structures is more likely to be accepted raises the challenge of differentiating a technology that merely simulates human support (by avatar, etc.).
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Peine, A.; Faulkner, A.; Jæger, B.; Moors, E. Science, technology and the ‘grand challenge’ of ageing—Understanding the socio-material constitution of later life. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2015, 93, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, A.M.; Gregório, M.J.; Sousa, R.D.; Dias, S.S.; Santos, M.J.; Mendes, J.M.; Coelho, P.S.; Branco, J.C.; Canhão, H. Challenges of Ageing in Portugal: Data from the EpiDoC Cohort. Acta Medica Port. 2018, 31, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dobre, C.; Mavromoustakis, C.X.; Garcia, N.M.; Mastorakis, G.; Goleva, R.I. Introduction to the AAL and ELE Systems. In Ambient Assisted Living and Enhanced Living Environments; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Boudiny, K. ‘Active ageing’: From empty rhetoric to effective policy tool. Ageing Soc. 2013, 33, 1077–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van Dyk, S.; Lessenich, S.; Denninger, T.; Richter, A. The Many Meanings of “Active Ageing”. Confronting Public Discourse Older People’s Stories. Rech. Sociol. Anthropol. 2013, 44, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bechtold, U.; Stauder, N.; Fieder, M. Let’s Walk It: Mobility and the Perceived Quality of Life in Older Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
- Peine, A. (Ed.) Socio-Gerontechnology: Interdisciplinary Critical Studies of Ageing and Technology, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Sailer, M.; Mahr, A.; Reichstein, C.; Härting, R.-C.; Häfner, F.; Steiner, B.; Zenker, M.; Stechow, R.; Blotenberg, B.; Seeling, S. Lösungsansätze. In Active Assisted Living; Sailer, M., Mahr, A., Eds.; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2021; pp. 147–217. [Google Scholar]
- Peine, A.; Neven, L. From Intervention to Co-Constitution: New Directions in Theorizing about Aging and Technology. Gerontologist 2019, 59, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fletcher-Watson, B.; Crompton, C.J.; Hutchison, M.; Lu, H. Strategies for enhancing success in digital tablet use by older adults: A pilot study. Gerontechnology 2016, 15, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tinker, A. Some ethical issues in research on the housing of older people. Gerontechnology 2016, 15, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mollenkopf, H. Societal aspects and individual preconditions of technological development. Gerontechnology 2016, 15, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harwood, J. Understanding Communication and Aging: Developing Knowledge and Awareness; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Enßle, F.; Helbrecht, I. Understanding diversity in later life through images of old age. Ageing Soc. 2021, 41, 2396–2415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kottow, M. Towards a Medical Anthropology of Ageing; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Craig, T.; Smelick, C.; Tacutu, R.; Wuttke, D.; Wood, S.H.; Stanley, H.; Janssens, G.; Savitskaya, E.; Moskalev, A.; Arking, R.; et al. The Digital Ageing Atlas: Integrating the diversity of age-related changes into a unified resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, D873–D878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sargent-Cox, K. Ageism: We are our own worst enemy. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2017, 29, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nägler, D.; Wanka, A. The Multidimensionality of Materiality: Bodies, Space, and Things in Transitions. In Doing Transitions in the Life Course; Stauber, B., Walther, A., Settersten, R.A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; Volume 16, pp. 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dykstra, P.A. Older adult loneliness: Myths and realities. Eur. J. Ageing 2009, 6, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nieboer, A.P.; Hajema, K.; Cramm, J.M. Relationships of self-management abilities to loneliness among older people: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2020, 20, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, E.; Petermann-Rocha, F.; Welsh, P.; Celis-Morales, C.; Pell, J.P.; Ho, F.K.; Gray, S.R. The effect of exercise on quality of life and activities of daily life in frail older adults: A systematic review of randomized control trials. Exp. Gerontol. 2021, 147, 111287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Donizzetti, A.R. Ageism in an Aging Society: The Role of Knowledge, Anxiety about Aging, and Stereotypes in Young People and Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, S.; Mariano, J.; Mendonça, J.; De Tavernier, W.; Hess, M.; Naegele, L.; Peixeiro, F.; Martins, D. Determinants of Ageism against Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rentsch, T.; Zimmermann, H.-P.; Kruse, A. (Eds.) Altern in unserer Zeit: Späte Lebensphasen zwischen Vitalität und Endlichkeit; Campus: Frankfurt, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Halmdienst, N.; Schmidt, M. Digitale Kompetenz der Generation 50+ in Österreich. 2018. Available online: https://www.share-austria.at/fileadmin/user_upload/papers/SHARE_Report_10_2018_Digitale_Kompetenz_online.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2022).
- Ravulaparthy, S.; Yoon, S.Y.; Goulias, K.G. Linking Elderly Transport Mobility and Subjective Well-Being: A Multivariate Latent Modeling Approach. Transp. Res. Rec. 2013, 2382, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, P.S.; Bodner, E.V.; Allman, R.M. Measuring Life-Space Mobility in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: LIFE-SPACE MOBILITY. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2003, 51, 1610–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elder, G.H.; Shanahan, M.J.; Jennings, J.A. Human Development in Time and Place. In Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science; Lerner, R.M., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–49. [Google Scholar]
- Baumstarck, K.; Pelletier, J.; Butzkueven, H.; Fernández, O.; Flachenecker, P.; Idiman, E.; Stecchi, S.; Boucekine, M.; Auquier, P.; MusiQoL study group. Health-related quality of life as an independent predictor of long-term disability for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Eur. J. Neurol. 2013, 20, 907-e79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Pu, R.; Ghose, B.; Tang, S. Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain, Self-Reported Health and Quality of Life among Older Populations in South Africa and Uganda. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peek, S.T.; Wouters, E.J.; van Hoof, J.; Luijkx, K.G.; Boeije, H.R.; Vrijhoef, H.J. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2014, 83, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferguson, C.; Hickman, L.D.; Turkmani, S.; Breen, P.; Gargiulo, G.; Inglis, S.C. “Wearables only work on patients that wear them”: Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of wearable cardiac monitoring technologies. Cardiovasc. Digit. Health J. 2021, 2, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lindquist, L.A.; Ramirez-Zohfeld, V.; Sunkara, P.; Forcucci, C.; Campbell, D.; Mitzen, P.; Cameron, K.A. Advanced life events (ALEs) that impede aging-in-place among seniors. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2016, 64, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holmes, T.H.; Rahe, R.H. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. J. Psychosom. Res. 1967, 11, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallace, D.; Cooper, N.R.; Sel, A.; Russo, R. The social readjustment rating scale: Updated and modernized. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0295943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banks, J.; Bassoli, E.; Mammi, I. Changing attitudes to risk at older ages: The role of health and other life events. J. Econ. Psychol. 2020, 79, 102208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Technology acceptance model: T.A.M. In Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption; Al-Suqri, M.N., Al-Aufi, A.S., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 1989; Volume 205, p. 219. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauk, N.; Hüffmeier, J.; Krumm, S. Ready to be a Silver Surfer? A Meta-analysis on the Relationship between Chronological Age and Technology Acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 84, 304–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carstensen, L.L.; Hershfield, H.E. Beyond Stereotypes: Using Socioemotional Selectivity Theory to Improve Messaging to Older Adults. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2021, 30, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Gilleard, C.; Higgs, P. Agents or actants. In Socio-Gerontechnology: Interdisciplinary Critical Studies of Ageing and Technology, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 99–111. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, N. Acceptance of Social Robots by Aging Users: Towards a Pleasure-Oriented View. In Cross-Cultural Design. Methods, Tools, and Users; Rau, P.-L.P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 387–397. [Google Scholar]
- Vandemeulebroucke, T.; de Casterlé, B.D.; Gastmans, C. How do older adults experience and perceive socially assistive robots in aged care: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Aging Ment. Health 2018, 22, 149–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsertsidis, A.; Kolkowska, E.; Hedström, K. Factors influencing seniors’ acceptance of technology for ageing in place in the post-implementation stage: A literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2019, 129, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shishehgar, M.; Kerr, D.; Blake, J. A systematic review of research into how robotic technology can help older people. Smart Health 2018, 7–8, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitardi, V.; Marriott, H.R. Alexa, she’s not human but… Unveiling the drivers of consumers’ trust in voice-based artificial intelligence. Psychol. Mark. 2021, 38, 626–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.; Yang, H. Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: A parasocial relationship perspective. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 618–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ursin, F.; Timmermann, C.; Steger, F. Ethical Implications of Alzheimer’s Disease Prediction in Asymptomatic Individuals through Artificial Intelligence. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Unsure | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
If older adults used technology to stay at home longer, it would increase their own Quality of Life (N = 227). | 63.4% (144) | 27.3% (62) | 1.8% (4) | 1.8% (4) | 5.7% (13) |
If older adults used technology to stay at home longer, it would increase the Quality of Life of their loved ones (N = 222). | 49.1% (109) | 32% (71) | 5.9% (13) | 3.2% (7) | 9.9% (22) |
If older adults used technology to stay at home longer, it would increase the Quality of Life of potential caretakers (N = 212). | 41% (87) | 29.2% (62) | 6.6% (14) | 4.7% (10) | 18.4% (39) |
If older adults used technology to stay at home longer, it would relieve the Austrian health care and social system (N = 226). | 54% (122) | 23.5% (53) | 4.9% (11) | 2.2% (5) | 15.5% (35) |
Yes | No | Not Specified | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Could you imagine having a sensor installed in the following objects? | Cutlery Drawer (N = 208) | 11.5% (24) | 74% (154) | 14.4% (30) |
Bedside Rug (N = 206) | 7.3% (15) | 79.6% (164) | 13.1% (27) | |
Faucet (N = 214) | 29.9% (64) | 57.5% (123) | 12.6% (27) | |
Shoes/Slippers (N = 205) | 4.4% (9) | 82.4% (169) | 13.2% (27) | |
Watch/Clock (N = 209) | 19.6% (41) | 65.6% (137) | 14.8% (31) | |
Bathroom Door (N = 212) | 23.6% (50) | 63.7% (135) | 12.7% (27) |
Yes | No | Not Specified | |
---|---|---|---|
Could you imagine communicating with your doctor through your TV, computer or tablet? (N = 231) | 54.1% (125) | 39% (90) | 6.9% (16) |
If you said yes to the previous question, would you want this? (N = 134) | 64.9% (87) | 18.7% (25) | 16.4% (22) |
Could you imagine that your medical parameters (such as blood pressure or blood sugar) were measured by a chip in your arm and would be regularly transmitted to your doctor? (N = 230) | 37% (85) | 54.3% (125) | 8.7% (20) |
Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Unsure | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Imagine you find out about a technical system that you think would be useful for you and your household. How would you personally rate the following statements? | I would spend money on it (N = 227). | 25.6% (58) | 34.8% (79) | 14.1% (32) | 14.5% (33) | 11% (25) |
I would be prepared to change my daily habits (e.g., mealtimes) for it (N = 215). | 13.5% (29) | 31.2% (67) | 20% (43) | 26% (56) | 9.3% (20) | |
I would be prepared to change my familiar surroundings (e.g., flooring) for it (N = 218). | 13.3% (29) | 28% (61) | 23.9% (52) | 27.5% (60) | 7.3% (16) |
Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree | Unsure | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
My calendrical age and perceived age are the same (N = 229). | 15.7% (36) | 28.8% (66) | 34.9% (80) | 17.9% (41) | 2.6% (6) |
There was one specific event that made me feel much older than before (N = 224). | 14.7% (33) | 21.4% (48) | 17% (38) | 37.1% (83) | 9.8% (22) |
Sometimes I feel much younger and sometimes much older (N = 229). | 28.4% (65) | 28.4% (65) | 22.7% (52) | 15.3% (35) | 5.2% (12) |
Since a certain birthday, I have felt increasingly old (N = 228). | 3.9% (9) | 16.2% (37) | 28.1% (64) | 46.1% (105) | 5.7% (13) |
Age is not important to me (N = 227). | 28.2% (64) | 30% (68) | 21.1% (48) | 14.1% (32) | 6.6% (15) |
Estimate | Std. Error | z Value | OR | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 4.45572 | 2.494 | 1.787 | 0.074 | |
Feeling older since a certain event | −1.094 | 0.370 | −2.953 | 0.335 | 0.003 |
Sex | −0.18789 | 0.423 | −0.444 | 0.829 | 0.657 |
Age | −0.05634 | 0.029 | −1.927 | 0.945 | 0.054 |
Highest education | −0.04804 | 0.156 | −0.308 | 0.953 | 0.758 |
Income | 0.02216 | 0.198 | 0.112 | 1.022 | 0.911 |
Estimate | Std. Error | z Value | OR | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 2.207 | 2.228 | 0.991 | 0.322 | |
Sensor in home | −0.912 | 0.371 | −2.461 | 0.402 | 0.014 |
Sensor in home (no answer) | −0.244 | 0.641 | −0.381 | 0.783 | 0.703 |
Sex | −0.110 | 0.406 | −0.270 | 0.896 | 0.787 |
Age | −0.028 | 0.027 | −1.051 | 0.972 | 0.294 |
Highest Education | −0.104 | 0.153 | −0.678 | 0.901 | 0.498 |
Income | 0.035 | 0.186 | 0.191 | 1.036 | 0.849 |
Estimate | Std. Error | z Value | OR | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 3.8604923 | 2.384 | 1.619 | 0.105 | |
Microchip implant that takes medical parameters | −0.9019444 | 0.354 | −2.550 | 0.406 | 0.011 |
Sex | −0.0473046 | 0.418 | −0.113 | 0.954 | 0.910 |
Age | −0.0529906 | 0.029 | −1.837 | 0.948 | 0.066 |
Highest Education | 0.0008788 | 0.156 | 0.006 | 1.001 | 0.996 |
Income | 0.0082425 | 0.192 | 0.043 | 1.008 | 0.966 |
Estimate | p | |
---|---|---|
Q14 Living alone | −0.227 | 0.52 |
Q17 Cohabitation | −0.046 | 0.91 |
Q21 Regular social contact | −1.125 | 0.17 |
Q23 Regular contact with at least one neighbour | 0.407 | 0.26 |
Q24 Self-rate overall QoL | 0.034 | 0.83 |
Q59A QoL benefit for self | 0.542 | 0.53 |
Q59B QoL benefit for relatives | −0.159 | 0.79 |
Q59C QoL benefit for caretakers | 0.106 | 0.85 |
Q59D QoL benefit for health and social system | −0.784 | 0.26 |
Q57 Talk to a physician with a TV, tablet, or computer | −0.188 | 0.63 |
Q41A Memory problems | −0.488 | 0.18 |
Q41B Walking problems | −0.293 | 0.43 |
Q41C Vision problems | −0.383 | 0.30 |
Q41D Hearing problems | 0.108 | 0.77 |
Q41E Balance problems | −0.125 | 0.78 |
Q41F Vertigo | −0.623 | 0.14 |
Q41G Orientation problems | −0.315 | 0.54 |
Q25 Health satisfaction | −0.625 | 0.32 |
Q60A Perceived age and calendrical age coincide | −0.298 | 0.38 |
Q60C Sometimes I feel older, sometimes younger | −0.353 | 0.32 |
Q60D There is a specific birthday since which I feel older | 0.153 | 0.72 |
Q60E Age is not important for me | −0.287 | 0.41 |
Q61A I feel healthier/less healthy than my peers | 0.332 | 0.56 |
Q61B I feel fitter/less fit than my peers | −0.143 | 0.75 |
Q61C I feel more/less active than my peers | −0.385 | 0.40 |
Q61D I feel more/less content than my peers | 0.046 | 0.95 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bechtold, U.; Stauder, N.; Fieder, M. Attitudes towards Technology: Insights on Rarely Discussed Influences on Older Adults’ Willingness to Adopt Active Assisted Living (AAL). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050628
Bechtold U, Stauder N, Fieder M. Attitudes towards Technology: Insights on Rarely Discussed Influences on Older Adults’ Willingness to Adopt Active Assisted Living (AAL). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2024; 21(5):628. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050628
Chicago/Turabian StyleBechtold, Ulrike, Natalie Stauder, and Martin Fieder. 2024. "Attitudes towards Technology: Insights on Rarely Discussed Influences on Older Adults’ Willingness to Adopt Active Assisted Living (AAL)" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 21, no. 5: 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21050628