Cited by 449Technology Use by Older AdultsAging and Gerontology ResearchAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Advancing the Aging and Technology Agenda in Gerontology

Open access
Schulz, Richard, Wahl, Hans-Werner, Matthews, Judith T., De Vito Dabbs, Annette, Beach, Scott R., Czaja, Sara J.·2015·The Gerontologist

Abstract

Interest in technology for older adults is driven by multiple converging trends: the rapid pace of technological development; the unprecedented growth of the aging population in the United States and worldwide; the increase in the number and survival of persons with disability; the growing and unsustainable costs of caring for the elderly people; and the increasing interest on the part of business, industry, and government agencies in addressing health care needs with technology. These trends have contributed to the strong conviction that technology can play an important role in enhancing quality of life and independence of older individuals with high levels of efficiency, potentially reducing individual and societal costs of caring for the elderly people. The purpose of this "Forum" position article is to integrate what we know about older adults and technology systems in order to provide direction to this vital enterprise. We define what we mean by technology for an aging population, provide a brief history of its development, introduce a taxonomy for characterizing current technology applications to older adults, summarize research in this area, describe existing development and evaluation processes, identify factors important for the acceptance of technology among older individuals, and recommend future directions for research in this area.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geront/gnu071

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Barrett, L. L. (2008). Older adults' and family caregivers' percep- tions and use of technology to maintain independence: A litera- ture review. Washington, DC: AARP Foundation.
  2. Bouma, H., & Graafmans, J. (1992). Gerontechnology. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  3. Fozard, J. L., & Fisk A. D. (1988). Human factors and the aging population. Human Factors Bulletin, 31, 1-2.
  4. Wagner, C. (2009). Tele-care and robo-therapy: Vision and real- ity of living with robots in Japan's aging society. In M. Godzik (Ed.), Japanstudien 21. Altern in Japan (pp. 271-298). Munich, Germany: Iudicium Verlag.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schulz, R., Wahl, H.-W., Matthews, J. T., De Vito Dabbs, A., Beach, S. R., & Czaja, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Schulz, Richard
Venue
The Gerontologist
Published
2014-08-27
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
724-734
ISSN
  • 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5341
OpenAlex
W2029640771
Cited by
449
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15
FWCI
56.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0540865)
  • National Institutes of Health (0540865)
  • National Institute on Aging (P01AG017211, P30AG024827)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (K01NR009385, R21NR013450, R01NR010711, R01NR014434)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
technology for older adults, population aging, assistive technology, older adults, technology acceptance, technology taxonomy, quality of life, elderly independence, care costs
MeSH terms
Aged, Aging, Geriatrics, Persons with Disabilities, Health Promotion, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, Technology, United States

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