Assistive technology and self-rated health in comparison with age peers: a longitudinal study in 55–64-year-olds

Abstract

Purpose: To determine changes in self-rated health in comparison with age peers (SRH-AP) among 55–64-year-olds, as affected by (1) initiating, (2) ceasing, and (3) prolonging the use of assistive technology (AT). Methods: Data included two national cohorts of 55–64-year-olds from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (total N = 1968), with baseline cycles in 1992–93 and 2002–03 and 3-year follow-ups. The effect of AT use on SRH-AP was studied in analyses of variance for repeated measurements, adjusting for age and self-reported disability. Results: Respondents using AT reported poorer SRH-AP than respondents not using AT. Over time disability increased for respondents prolonging and initiating AT use and decreased for respondents ceasing AT use. No major changes were seen in SRH-AP over time, except for a small improvement for respondents prolonging AT use. Conclusions: AT use had a negative influence on SRH-AP, but this influence subsided over time for prolonged AT use. Despite longitudinal changes in disability, there was a marked stability of SRH-AP over time which may be attributed to AT use.

Implications for Rehabilitation

• Both the proportion of 55–64-year-olds using AT and the proportion reporting disability was significantly higher in the recent cohort as compared to the early cohort.

• 55–64-Year-olds not using AT rated their health compared with age peers (SRH-AP) better than those using AT.

• 55–64-Year-olds who prolonged the use of AT reported the poorest ratings of SRH-AP, but also showed the clearest improvement in SRH-AP, suggesting that the initial negative influence of AT use on SRH-AP may subside over time.

• Assistive technology
• comparison with age peers
• quality of life
• self-rated health
• younger-old

Declaration of interest

LASA is largely supported by the Dutch Ministry of Wellfare and Health, which had no involvement in study design, analysis and interpretation of data. The authors report no conflicts of interest.