Does the purpose matter? A comparison of everyday information and communication technologies between eHealth use and general use as perceived by older adults with cognitive impairment

References

• Emiliani PL. Assistive technology (AT) versus mainstream technology (MST): the research perspective. Technol Disabil. 2006;18(1):19–29.
   Google Scholar
• Ryd C, Malinowsky C, Öhman A, et al. Older adults' experiences of daily life occupations as everyday technology changes. Br J Occup Ther. 2018;81(10):601–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh RJ, Lee J, Drasga RM, et al. Everyday technology use and overall needed assistance to function in the home and community among urban older adults. J Appl Gerontol. 2019;38:1–9. DOI:10.1177/0733464819878620
   Google Scholar
• Nymberg VM, Bolmsjö BB, Wolff M, et al. 'Having to learn this so late in our lives…' Swedish elderly patients' beliefs, experiences, attitudes and expectations of e-health in primary health care. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2019;37(1):41–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware P, Bartlett SJ, Pare G, et al. Using eHealth technologies: interests, preferences, and concerns of older adults. Interact J Med Res. 2017;6(1):e3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård L, Starkhammar S. The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: mapping out the difficulties. Aging Ment Health. 2007;11(2):144–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagnon MP, Légareé F, Labrecque M, et al. Interventions for promoting information and communication technologies adoption in healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006093.pub2
   Google Scholar
• Wallcook S, Nygård L, Kottorp A, et al. The use of everyday information communication technologies in the lives of older adults living with and without dementia in Sweden. Assist Technol. 2019;1–8. DOI:10.1080/10400435.2019.1644685
   Google Scholar
• Nygård L, Pantzar M, Uppgard BM, et al. Detection of activity limitations in older adults with MCI or Alzheimer's disease through evaluation of perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology: a replication study. Aging Ment Health. 2012;16(3):361–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedman A, Lindqvist E, Nygård L. How older adults with mild cognitive impairment relate to technology as part of present and future everyday life: a qualitative study. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):1–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Czaja SJ, Sharit J, Hernandez MA, et al. Variability among older adults in Internet health information-seeking performance. Gerontechnology. 2010;9(1):46–55.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L, Kottorp A, et al. Perceived difficulty in everyday technology use among older adults with or without cognitive deficits. Scand J Occup Ther. 2009;16(4):216–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Kottorp A, Wallin A, et al. Differences in the use of everyday technology among persons with MCI, SCI and older adults without known cognitive impairment. Int Psychogeriatr. 2017;29(7):1193–1200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryd C, Nygård L, Malinowsky C, et al. Associations between performance of activities of daily living and everyday technology use among older adults with mild stage Alzheimer’s disease or mild cognitive impairment. Scand J Occup Ther. 2015;22(1):33–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes SL, Salzberg CA, McCarthy D, et al. High-need, high-cost patients: who are they and how do they use health care? A population-based comparison of demographics, health care use, expenditures [Internet]; 2016 (Commonw Fund); [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.colleaga.org/sites/default/files/attachments/1897_hayes_who_are_high_need_high_cost_patients_v2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lepkowsky CM, Arndt S. The Internet: barrier to health care for older adults? Pract Innov. 2019;4(2):124–132.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World population prospects 2019. Volume I: comprehensive tables (ST/ESA/SER.A/426); 2020; [cited 2020 Jan 15]. Available from: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Marć M, Bartosiewicz A, Burzyńska J, et al. A nursing shortage – a prospect of global and local policies. Int Nurs Rev. 2019;66(1):9–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission, European Economy. The 2018 ageing report: economic and budgetary projections for the EU Member States (2016–2070). Institutional paper 079; 2018; [cited 2020 Feb 25]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip079_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brall C, Schröder-Bäck P, Maeckelberghe E. Ethical aspects of digital health from a justice point of view. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29(Suppl. 3):18–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Editorial. A digital (r) evolution: introducing The Lancet Digital Health. The Lancet Digital Health; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Hall AK, Stellefson M, Bernhardt JM. Healthy Aging 2.0: the potential of new media and technology. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: eHealth Action Plan 2012–2020 – innovative healthcare for the 21st century; 2019; [cited 2019 Dec 12]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ehealth-action-plan-2012-2020-innovative-healthcare-21st-century
   Google Scholar
• Boogerd EA, Arts T, Engelen LJ, et al. “What Is eHealth”: time for an update? JMIR Res Protoc. 2015;4(1):e29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakobsson E, Nygård C, Kottorp A, et al. Experiences from using eHealth in contact with health care among older adults with cognitive impairment. Scand J Caring Sci. 2019;33(2):380–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins I, Xie B. eHealth literacy interventions for older adults: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(11):e225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICTL Panel. Digital transformation: a framework for ICT literacy. Educational Testing Service; 2002; [cited 2020 Apr 7]. Available from: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/ICTREPORT.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(2):E9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan CV, Kaufman DR. A framework for characterizing eHealth literacy demands and barriers. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griebel L, Enwald H, Gilstad H, et al. eHealth literacy research—Quo vadis? Inform Health Soc Care. 2018;43(4):427–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunsaker A, Hargittai E. A review of Internet use among older adults. New Media Soc. 2018;20(10):3937–3954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Internetstiftelsen. Svenskarna och Internet; 2019; [The Swedes and the Internet 2019]; [cited 2019 Dec 18]. Available from: https://svenskarnaochinternet.se/app/uploads/2019/10/svenskarna-och-internet-2019-a4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wiklund-Axelsson SA, Melander-Wikman A, Näslund A, et al. Older people's health-related ICT-use in Sweden. Gerontechnology. 2013;12(1):36–43.
   Google Scholar
• Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner [Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions]. Hälso- och sjukvårds-barometern 2019. Befolkningens attityder till, förtroende för och uppfattning om hälso- och sjukvården [The Health Care Barometer 2019. The population's attitudes to, trust in and perception of health care]; 2020; [cited 2020 May 25]. Available from: https://webbutik.skr.se/bilder/artiklar/pdf/7585-875-3.pdf?issuusl=ignore
   Google Scholar
• Palmqvist S, Terzis B, Strobel C, et al. MMSE-SR: the standardized Swedish MMSE. 2nd version. Stockholm: Svensk Förening för Kognitiva sjukdomar; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983;12(2):166–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kottorp A, Nygård L. Development of a short-form assessment for detection of subtle activity limitations: can use of everyday technology distinguish between MCI and Alzheimer's disease? Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11(5):647–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire: psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR-Occup Part Heal. 2009;29(2):52–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygård L. Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ). Unpublished manual, research version 2. Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institutet; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hedman A, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use related to activity involvement among people in cognitive decline. Am J Occup Ther. 2017;71(5):7105190040p1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Winsteps – Rasch measurement computer program [computer software]. Version 3.92.1. Chicago: MESA Press; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk (NY): IBM Corp.; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Hedman A, Kottorp A, Almkvist O, et al. Challenge levels of everyday technologies as perceived over five years by older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Int Psychogeriatr. 2018;30(10):1447–1454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond T, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Routledge; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Revised edition. New York (NY): Academic Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L. Learning and using technology in intertwined processes: a study of people with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease. Dementia (London). 2014;13(5):662–677.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Choi NG, DiNitto DM. The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/Internet use. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(5):E93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiklund Axelsson S, Nyberg L, Näslund A, et al. The anticipated positive psychosocial impact of present web-based e-health services and future mobile health applications: an investigation among older Swedes. Int J Telemed Appl. 2013;2013:509198.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kottorp A, Nygård L, Hedman A, et al. Access to and use of everyday technology among older people: an occupational justice issue – but for whom? J Occup Sci. 2016;23(3):382–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seifert A, Hofer M, Rössel J. Older adults’ perceived sense of social exclusion from the digital world. Educ Gerontol. 2018;44(12):775–785.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber L, Watson C, Roberto KA, et al. Aging in intra-and intergenerational contexts: the family technologist. In: Kwon S, editor. Gerontechnology: research, practice, principles in the field of technology. New York (NY): Springer Publishing Company; 2017. p. 57–90.
   Google Scholar
• LaMonica HM, English A, Hickie IB, et al. Examining internet and eHealth practices and preferences: survey study of Australian older adults with subjective memory complaints, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(10):e358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Using a screening tool to evaluate potential use of e-health services for older people with and without cognitive impairment. Aging Ment Health. 2014;18(3):340–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen L, Lindberg C, Sanmartin Berglund J, et al. Using mobile health and the impact on health-related quality of life: perceptions of older adults with cognitive impairment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:2650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Digitaliseringsrådet [Digitization Council]. En lägesbild av digital trygghet [A report of digital security]; 2018; [cited 2019 Oct 16]. Available from: https://digitaliseringsradet.se/media/1131/laegesrapport-digital-trygghet-klar-20.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Klimova B, Maresova P, Lee S. Elderly’s attitude towards the selected types of e-Health. Healthcare. 2020;8(1):38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiners F, Sturm J, Bouw L, et al. Sociodemographic factors influencing the use of eHealth in people with chronic diseases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee K, Hoti K, Hughes JD, et al. Dr Google is here to stay but health care professionals are still valued: an analysis of health care consumers’ internet navigation support preferences. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(6):E210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kottorp A, Malinowsky C, Larsson-Lund M, et al. Gender and diagnostic impact on everyday technology use: a differential item functioning (DIF) analysis of the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ). Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(22):2688–2694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar