The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: To provide an overview of factors influencing the acceptance of electronic technologies that support aging in place by community-dwelling older adults. Since technology acceptance factors fluctuate over time, a distinction was made between factors in the pre-implementation stage and factors in the post-implementation stage. METHODS: A systematic review of mixed studies. Seven major scientific databases (including MEDLINE, Scopus and CINAHL) were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) original and peer-reviewed research, (2) qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods research, (3) research in which participants are community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years or older, and (4) research aimed at investigating factors that influence the intention to use or the actual use of electronic technology for aging in place. Three researchers each read the articles and extracted factors. RESULTS: Sixteen out of 2841 articles were included. Most articles investigated acceptance of technology that enhances safety or provides social interaction. The majority of data was based on qualitative research investigating factors in the pre-implementation stage. Acceptance in this stage is influenced by 27 factors, divided into six themes: concerns regarding technology (e.g., high cost, privacy implications and usability factors); expected benefits of technology (e.g., increased safety and perceived usefulness); need for technology (e.g., perceived need and subjective health status); alternatives to technology (e.g., help by family or spouse), social influence (e.g., influence of family, friends and professional caregivers); and characteristics of older adults (e.g., desire to age in place). When comparing these results to qualitative results on post-implementation acceptance, our analysis showed that some factors are persistent while new factors also emerge. Quantitative results showed that a small number of variables have a significant influence in the pre-implementation stage. Fourteen out of the sixteen included articles did not use an existing technology acceptance framework or model. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of technology in the pre-implementation stage is influenced by multiple factors. However, post-implementation research on technology acceptance by community-dwelling older adults is scarce and most of the factors in this review have not been tested by using quantitative methods. Further research is needed to determine if and how the factors in this review are interrelated, and how they relate to existing models of technology acceptance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Some older adults will perceive a technology as being more relevant for other elderly people with more extensive functional impairments56 and be less motivated to use it themselves.”
From Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review (2018) · cites this paper as [56]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Engaging older adults in a preimplementation study thus risks obtaining a “prototypical result,” according to Peek et al (2014).56”
From Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review (2018) · cites this paper as [56]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This is in line with Peek et al (2014, p. 242), who found that a perceived personal need for technology was the most frequent factor mentioned for technology use and acceptance.56”
From Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review (2018) · cites this paper as [56]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,670
Valente, T. W. (2003) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.gim.0000061743.67794.c4 · Cited by 20,559
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
Revisiting the Behavioral Model and Access to Medical Care: Does it Matter?
Andersen, R. M. (1995) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2137284 · Cited by 9,831
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312
Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4 · Cited by 4,250
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249751 · Cited by 3,833
A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003 · Cited by 2,906
The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 · Cited by 2,669
The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00122 · Cited by 2,238
Value-based Adoption of Mobile Internet: An empirical investigation
Kim, H.-W., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009 · Cited by 2,084
Stuck, A. E., Walthert, J. M., Nikolaus, T., Büla, C., Hohmann, C., & Beck, J. C. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00370-0 · Cited by 1,887
Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148634 · Cited by 1,764
Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macaulay, A. C., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J., & Seller, R. (2012) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002 · Cited by 1,331
Loneliness in Older Persons: A Predictor of Functional Decline and Death
Perissinotto, C. M., Stijacic Cenzer, I., & Covinsky, K. E. (2012) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.1993 · Cited by 1,269
Kellerman, H., & Burry, A. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71370-0_12 · Cited by 1,009
Prediction of institutionalization in the elderly. A systematic review
Luppa, M., Luck, T., Weyerer, S. B., König, H. ‐., Brähler, E., & Riedel-Heller, S. G. (2009) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afp202 · Cited by 903
Predicting nursing home admission in the U.S: a meta-analysis
Gaugler, J. E., Duval, S., Anderson, K. A., & Kane, R. L. (2007) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-7-13 · Cited by 883
Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review
Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005 · Cited by 851
Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research.
University of Arkansas, Venkatesh, V., Davis, F., University of Arkansas, Morris, M., & University of Virginia (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00120 · Cited by 789
Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007) · Journal of Modelling in Management · doi:10.1108/17465660710834453 · Cited by 624
A Systematic Review of Patient Acceptance of Consumer Health Information Technology
Or, C. K. L., & Karsh, B.-T. (2009) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2888 · Cited by 586
Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: Toward a Technology Continuance Theory (TCT)
Liao, C., Palvia, P., & Chen, J.-L. (2009) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.004 · Cited by 579
Elderly persons’ perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare
Steele, R., Lo, A., Secombe, C., & Wong, Y. K. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.08.001 · Cited by 508
Southern, D. A., Norris, C. M., Quan, H., Shrive, F. M., Galbraith, P. D., Humphries, K. H., Gao, M., Knudtson, M. L., Ghali, W. A., & the APPROACH Investigators (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-1 · Cited by 503
Older Adults' Perspectives on Successful Aging: Qualitative Interviews
Reichstadt, J., Sengupta, G., Depp, C. A., Palinkas, L. A., & Jeste, D. V. (2010) · American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/jgp.0b013e3181e040bb · Cited by 380
Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies
Demiris, G., Hensel, B. K., Skubic, M., & Rantz, M. (2008) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462307080154 · Cited by 356
A review of technology acceptance by older adults
Chen, K., & Chan, A. H. S. (2011) · Gerontechnology · doi:10.4017/gt.2011.10.01.006.00 · Cited by 353 · cited 3×
“critical factor in determining an older adult’s acceptance f technology [32].”
BackgroundInfluentialAgeing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: Perspectives of older users
van Hoof, J., Kort, H. S. M., Rutten, P. G. S., & Duijnstee, M. S. H. (2011) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.02.010 · Cited by 322
Lin, T., Wu, S., Hsu, J. S., & Chou, Y.-C. (2012) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.04.004 · Cited by 284
Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: part 2
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007) · Journal of Modelling in Management · doi:10.1108/17465660710834462 · Cited by 257
In situ monitoring of health in older adults: technologies and issues
Kang, H. G., Mahoney, D. F., Hoenig, H., Hirth, V. A., Bonato, P., Hajjar, I., Lipsitz, L. A., & for the Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology Working Group on Advanced Approaches to Physiologic Monitoring for the Aged (2010) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02959.x · Cited by 227
Dignity in older age: what do older people in the United Kingdom think?
Woolhead, G. (2004) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afh045 · Cited by 198
Courtney, K. L., Demiris, G., Rantz, M., & Skubic, M. (2008) · Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v16i3.694 · Cited by 197
Wild, K. V., Boise, L., Lundell, J., & Foucek, A. (2008) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/0733464807311435 · Cited by 193
Toward a better understanding of behavioral intention and system usage constructs
Wu, J., & Du, H. (2012) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.15 · Cited by 175
Boldy, D., Grenade, L., Lewin, G., Karol, E., & Burton, E. (2011) · Australasian Journal on Ageing · doi:10.1111/j.1741-6612.2010.00469.x · Cited by 166
Chiu, T., & Eysenbach, G. (2010) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-10-73 · Cited by 142
Preferences for Receipt of Care Among Community-Dwelling Adults
Eckert, J. K., Morgan, L. A., & Swamy, N. (2004) · Journal of Aging & Social Policy · doi:10.1300/j031v16n02_04 · Cited by 127
Receptivity to new technology among older adults
Chappell, N. L., & Zimmer, Z. (1999) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/096382899297648 · Cited by 126
Privacy, Technology, and Aging: A Proposed Framework
Lorenzen-Huber, L., Boutain, M., Camp, L. J., Shankar, K., & Connelly, K. H. (2011) · Ageing International · doi:10.1007/s12126-010-9083-y · Cited by 124
Mihailidis, A., Cockburn, A., Longley, C., & Boger, J. N. (2008) · Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/10400435.2008.10131927 · Cited by 115
Molony, S. L. (2010) · Research in Gerontological Nursing · doi:10.3928/19404921-20100302-02 · Cited by 107
Ethical frontiers of ICT and older users: cultural, pragmatic and ethical issues
McLean, A. (2011) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-011-9276-4 · Cited by 87
Perceptions and Use of Gerotechnology: Implications for Aging in Place
Mahmood, A. N., Yamamoto, T., Lee, M. F., & Steggell, C. D. (2008) · Journal of Housing for the Elderly · doi:10.1080/02763890802097144 · Cited by 85
Lim, C. (2009) · Journal of Engineering Design · doi:10.1080/09544820903317001 · Cited by 76
Making a difference: towards a method for weighing the evidence in a qualitative synthesis
Boeije, H., van Wesel, F., & Alisic, E. (2011) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01674.x · Cited by 69
Self-citationHörder, H., Frändin, K., & Larsson, M. H. (2013) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.3402/qhw.v8i0.20194 · Cited by 65
Wilson, E. V. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-016-5 · Cited by 59
Wearing and Using Personal Emergency
Porter, E. J. (2005) · Journal of Gerontological Nursing · doi:10.3928/0098-9134-20051001-07 · Cited by 59
Cohen‐Mansfield, J., Creedon, M. A., Malone, T. B., Kirkpatrick, M., Dutra, L. A., & Herman, R. P. (2005) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/0733464804271277 · Cited by 53
The Scope and Future Trends of Gerontechnology: Consumers' Opinions and Literature Survey
Cohen‐Mansfield, J., & Biddison, J. R. (2007) · Journal of Technology in Human Services · doi:10.1300/j017v25n03_01 · Cited by 51
Age and cohort effects in gerontechnology: A reconsideration
Fozard, J. L., & Wahl, H. W. (2012) · Gerontechnology · doi:10.4017/gt.2012.11.01.003.00 · Cited by 47
Falls in older people: the place of telemonitoring in rehabilitation.
Horton, K. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 46
Baby boomers' use and perception of recommended assistive technology: A systematic review
Steel, D. M., Steel, D. M., & Gray, M. A. (2009) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483100902767175 · Cited by 42
Lai, C. K. Y., Chung, J. C. C., Leung, N., Wong, J. C., & Mak, D. (2010) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/jtt.2010.090905 · Cited by 42
An Overview and Analysis of Theories Employed in Telemedicine Studies
Johannessen, L. K., Sørensen, T., Wynn, R., Whitten, P., & Gammon, D. (2008) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me0484 · Cited by 29
Evaluation of Healthcare IT Applications: The User Acceptance Perspective
Zheng, K., Padman, R., Johnson, M. P., & Diamond, H. S. (2007) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72375-2_4 · Cited by 26
Burkhard, R. J. (2010) · International Journal of E-Health and Medical Communications · doi:10.4018/jehmc.2010010106 · Cited by 25
Steggell, C. D., Hooker, K. A., Bowman, S. E., Choun, S., & Kim, S.-J. (2010) · Gerontechnology · doi:10.4017/gt.2010.09.04.007.00 · Cited by 23
Considering the Use of a Personal Emergency Response System: An Experience of Frail, Older Women
Porter, E. J., & H.Ganong, L. (2002) · Care management journals · doi:10.1891/cmaj.3.4.192.57452 · Cited by 22
Peer support via video-telephony among frail elderly people living at home
Ezumi, H., Ochiai, N., Oda, M., Saito, S., Ago, M., Fukuma, N., & Takenami, S. (2003) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/135763303321159666 · Cited by 21
Predicting Patients' Use of Provider-Delivered E-Health
Wilson, E. V., & Lankton, N. K. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-016-5.ch016 · Cited by 18
Models for the acceptance of tele-care solutions: Intention vs behaviour
Bouwhuis, D. G., Meesters, L., & Sponselee, A.-M. A.-M. G. (2012) · Gerontechnology · doi:10.4017/gt.2012.11.01.007.00 · Cited by 17
HEYMER, A. (1964) · PubMed · Cited by 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Rijnaard, M. D., Nieboer, M. E., van der Voort, C. S., Aarts, S., van Hoof, J., Vrijhoef, H. J., & Wouters, E. (2015) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000430949 · Cited by 19,852
Self-citationTechnology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review
Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12864 · Cited by 1,204
A systematic review of the smart home literature: A user perspective
Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2019) · Technological forecasting & social change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.015 · Cited by 633
Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review
Liu, L., Stroulia, E., Nikolaidis, I., Cruz, A. M., & Rincon, A. M. R. (2016) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.007 · Cited by 711
Barriers and facilitators to the use of e-health by older adults: a scoping review
Wilson, J. W., Heinsch, M., Betts, D. N., Booth, D., & KAY‐LAMBKIN, F. J. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11623-w · Cited by 706
Metadata
- Authors
- Peek, S. T. M., Wouters, E. J. M., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K. G., Boeije, H. R., & Vrijhoef, H. J. M.
- Affiliations
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Fontys University of Applied Sciences (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Peek, Sebastiaan T.M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 235-248
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105499459
- Cited by
- 1,206
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 159 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 120 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 120 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 10
- FWCI
- 19.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (acceptedVersion)
- Research portal (Tilburg University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) (PRO-3-37)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- technology acceptance, aging in place, community-dwelling older adults, electronic health technology, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, privacy concerns, usability, social influence, family caregivers, safety technology, technology adoption
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Attitude to Computers, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Independent Living
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
