Meanings and experiences of assistive technologies in everyday lives of older citizens: a meta-interpretive review

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to synthesize the available qualitative studies on the meaning of assistive technologies (AT) in elderly people's everyday lives in order to identify central concepts, themes, and findings from existing research. Method: A systematic search of the literature was conducted, using predetermined search strategies. Exclusion criteria were, in accordance with the meta-interpretive approach, developed iteratively during the reading of abstracts and articles. Interpretations from the studies were used as data for thematic analysis and synthesis of findings. Results: Review of these studies show that older people not only have positive attitude towards AT, but also that acceptance of technologies is a potentially stressful process where trust towards technologies and other people are of importance. Older people have ambivalent experiences with technology, as it gives rise to possibilities as well as constraints, and safety as well as worries. AT enact sometimes conflicting values related to self and society. Conclusions: Although AT seem to support societal discourses on active aging, the empirical studies in this field show that the technologies enter older people’s lives in complex ways, enacting social values and ambivalences and interact with caretakers, relatives and other actors, within specific institutional settings.

Implications for rehabilitation

• In implementing AT, attention should be paid to ambivalences and conflicting values enacted by AT in older people's lives

• In implementing AT, attention should be paid not only to independency but also to the eventually dependencies, created by the use of AT

Keywords:

• Ambivalence
• autonomy
• elderly people
• independence
• technology

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to research librarian Anne-Marie Fiala Carlsen for her valuable help during the study. The authors are also grateful to the reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.