Perspectives on assistive technology among older Norwegian adults receiving community health services

References

• WHO. World report on disability. ALTER. Elsevier Masson SAS; 2011. p. 136.
   Google Scholar
• Layton N, MacLachlan M, Smith RO, et al. Towards coherence across global initiatives in assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15:728–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bougie IT. ISO 9999 assistive products for persons with disability: classification and terminology. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2008. p. 117–126.
   Google Scholar
• NAV. Assistive technology and facilitation n.r.; 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 9]. Available from: https://www.nav.no/soknader/en/person/hjelpemidler-og-tilrettelegging
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Assistive technology; 2018 [cited 2020 May 10]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology
   Google Scholar
• Holthe T, Halvorsrud L, Karterud D, et al. Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:863–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Norwegian Directorate of Health. Recommendations on welfare technology solutions in the municipalities (Anbefalinger om velferdsteknologiske løsninger i kommunene). Norwegian Government; 2019 [cited 2020 Jun 19]. Available from: https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/tema/velferdsteknologi/anbefalinger-om-velferdsteknologiske-losninger-i-kommunene
   Google Scholar
• Thordardottir B, Malmgren FA, Lethin C, et al. Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Nasdal C, Doherty G, Sas C. Technology acceptability, acceptance and adoption – definitions and measurement. Symposium: WISH – Workgroup on Interactive Systems in Healthcare; Glasgow, UK; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Abrilahij A, Boll T. A qualitative metasynthesis of reasons for the use or nonuse of assistive technologies in the aging population. J Gerontopsychol Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;32:79–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugstad JH, Eide T, Nilsen E, et al. Towards successful digital transformation through co-creation: a longitudinal study of a four-year implementation of digital monitoring technology in residential care for persons with dementia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holthe T, Casagrande FD, Halvorsrud L, et al. The Assisted Living Project: a process evaluation of implementation of sensor technology in community assisted living. A feasibility study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15:29–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit-Dubé L, Jean EK, Aguilar MA, et al. What facilitates the acceptance of technology to promote social participation in later life? A systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;2020:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen SM, Mortensen RF, Kristensen HK, et al. Older adults' perspectives on the process of becoming users of assistive technology: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14:182–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nymberg VM, Bolmsjo 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;37:41–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacelon CS, Hanson A. Older adults' participation in the development of smart environments: an integrated review of the literature. Geriatr Nurs. 2013;34:116–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holthe T, Halvorsrud L, Thorstensen E, et al. Community health care workers' experiences on enacting policy on technology with citizens with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020;13:447–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan AHS, Chen K. A review of technology acceptance by older adults. Gerontechnology. 2011;10:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Mitzner TL, Boron JB, Fausset CB, et al. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26:1710–1721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boström M, Kjellström S, Björklund A. Older persons have ambivalent feelings about the use of monitoring technologies. Technol Disabil. 2013;25:117–125.
   Google Scholar
• WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989;13:319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen K, Chan A, Hoi S. Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: a senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Ergonomics. 2014;57:635–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Create Center. Center for research and education on ageing and technology enhancement; 2017 [cited 2021 Jan 27]. Available from: http://www.create-center.org
   Google Scholar
• Shore L, Power V, de Eyto A, et al. Technology acceptance and user-centred design of assistive exoskeletons for older adults: a commentary. Robotics. 2018;7:3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Institute for Matching Person & Technology. Matching person and technology. Webster (NY): The Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 9]. Available from: https://sites.google.com/view/matchingpersontechnology/home
   Google Scholar
• Cook A, Polgar J. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier/Mosby; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Ravneberg B, Söderström S. Disability, society and assistive technology. New York: Routledge; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Peek STM, Wouters EJM, van Hoof J, et al. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:235–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee C, Coughlin JF. PERSPECTIVE: older adults' adoption of technology: an integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers: older adults' adoption of technology. J Prod Innov Manag. 2015;32:747–759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vorrink SNW, Antonietti A, Kort HSM, et al. Technology use by older adults in the Netherlands and its associations with demographics and health outcomes. Assist Technol. 2017;29:188–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vroman KG, Arthanat S, Lysack C. “Who over 65 is online?” Older adults’ dispositions toward information communication technology. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;43:156–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heart T, Kalderon E. Older adults: are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? Int J Med Inform. 2013;82:e209–e231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scanlon L, O'Shea E, O'Caoimh R, et al. Technology use and frequency and self-rated skills: a survey of community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63:1483–1484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez VG, Anker-Hansen C, Taylor I, et al. Older people's attitudes and perspectives of welfare technology in Norway. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:841–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gell NM, Rosenberg DE, Demiris G, et al. Patterns of technology use among older adults with and without disabilities. Gerontologist. 2015;55:412–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assisted Living Project; 2019. Available from: https://www.oslomet.no/forskning/forskningsprosjekter/assisted-living
   Google Scholar
• Brannen J. Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. New York (NY): Routledge; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2003;6:61–77.
   Google Scholar
• The Norwegian Institute of Public Health. RAND-12 u.kn; 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 29]. Available from: https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfiler/skjema/brukererfaring/norsk-rand-12.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE Jr., Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michelet M, Engedal K, Selbaek G, et al. The validity of the Norwegian version of the cognitive function instrument. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2018;46:217–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snaith RP, Zigmond AS. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292:344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SPSS. SPSS version 25. Chicago (IL): SPSS; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research (introducing qualitative methods). 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy MR, Ter Meulen R. Recommendations for involving people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and their informal caregivers and relatives in the Assisted Living Project. Bristol-Oslo: CEM Centre of Ethic and Medicine Oslo University College; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994. p. 105–117.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage; 1985.
   Google Scholar
• Hunsaker A, Hargittai E. A review of Internet use among older adults. New Media Soc. 2018;20:3937–3954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang S, Bolling K, Mao W, et al. Technology to support aging in place: older adults' perspectives. Healthcare. 2019;7:60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y-H, Cristancho-Lacroix V, Fassert C, et al. The attitudes and perceptions of older adults with mild cognitive impairment toward an assistive robot. J Appl Gerontol. 2016;35:3–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novitzky P, Smeaton AF, Chen C, et al. A review of contemporary work on the ethics of ambient assisted living technologies for people with dementia. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21:707–765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi JP, Jeon D-S, Kim B-C. Privacy and personal data collection with information externalities. J Public Econ. 2019;173:113–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorstensen E. Responsible assessments: frameworks for a value-based governance of assistive technologies. Oslo: Centre for the Study of Professions, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann B. Ethical challenges with welfare technology (Etiske utfordringer med velferdsteknologi). Oslo: Norwegian Public Health; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann B. How to evaluate ethical aspects of modern health and welfare technology? [Hvordan vurdere etiske aspekter ved moderne helse- og velferdsteknologi?]. J Care Res [Tidsskrift for Omsorgsforskning]. 2019;5:99–116. Norwegian.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsen ER, Dugstad J, Eide H, et al. Exploring resistance to implementation of welfare technology in municipal healthcare services – a longitudinal case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihailidis A, Cockburn A, Longley C, et al. The acceptability of home monitoring technology among community-dwelling older adults and baby boomers. Assist Technol. 2008;20:1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar