The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place
Open accessAbstract
Background: Most older adults prefer to age in place, and supporting older adults to remain in their own homes and communities is also favored by policy makers. Technology can play a role in staying independent, active and healthy. However, the use of technology varies considerably among older adults. Previous research indicates that current models of technology acceptance are missing essential predictors specific to community-dwelling older adults. Furthermore, in situ research within the specific context of aging in place is scarce, while this type of research is needed to better understand how and why community-dwelling older adults are using technology. Objective: To explore which factors influence the level of use of various types of technology by older adults who are aging in place and to describe these factors in a comprehensive model. Methods: A qualitative explorative field study was set up, involving home visits to 53 community-dwelling older adults, aged 68-95, living in the Netherlands. Purposive sampling was used to include participants with different health statuses, living arrangements, and levels of technology experience. During each home visit: (1) background information on the participants' chronic conditions, major life events, frailty, cognitive functioning, subjective health, ownership and use of technology was gathered, and (2) a semistructured interview was conducted regarding reasons for the level of use of technology. The study was designed to include various types of technology that could support activities of daily living, personal health or safety, mobility, communication, physical activity, personal development, and leisure activities. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze interview transcripts. Results: The level of technology use in the context of aging in place is influenced by six major themes: challenges in the domain of independent living; behavioral options; personal thoughts on technology use; influence of the social network; influence of organizations, and the role of the physical environment. Conclusion: Older adults' perceptions and use of technology are embedded in their personal, social, and physical context. Awareness of these psychological and contextual factors is needed in order to facilitate aging in place through the use of technology. A conceptual model covering these factors is presented.
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.
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
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
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
Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews
Mason, M. (2010) · Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research · doi:10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428 · Cited by 2,786
Huber, M., Knottnerus, J. A., Green, L., Horst, H. V. D., Jadad, A. R., Kromhout, D., Leonard, B., Lorig, K., Loureiro, M. I., Meer, J. W. M. V. D., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4163 · Cited by 2,637
Stuck, A. E., Walthert, J. M., Nikolaus, T., Büla, C. J., Hohmann, C., & Beck, J. C. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00370-0 · Cited by 1,868
Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review
Peek, S. T. M., Wouters, E. J. M., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K. G., Boeije, H. R., & Vrijhoef, H. J. M. (2014) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004 · Cited by 1,206
Self-citationWhat Is Wrong with Social Theory?
Blumer, H. (2017) · Sociological Methods · doi:10.4324/9781315129945-8 · Cited by 1,180
Cited by
The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview
Van Essen, D. C., Smith, S. M., Barch, D. M., Behrens, T. E. J., Yacoub, E., & Ugurbil, K. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041 · Cited by 5,651
Clinical and biomarker changes in dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease
Bateman, R. J., Xiong, C., Benzinger, T. L. S., Fagan, A. M., Goate, A., Fox, N. C., Marcus, D. S., Cairns, N. J., Xie, X., Blazey, T. M., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1202753 · Cited by 3,814
A standard procedure for creating a frailty index
Searle, S. D., Mitnitski, A., Gahbauer, E. A., Gill, T. M., & Rockwood, K. (2008) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-8-24 · Cited by 3,568
Anti-NMDA-receptor encephalitis: case series and analysis of the effects of antibodies
Dalmau, J., Gleichman, A. J., Hughes, E. G., Rossi, J. E., Peng, X., Lai, M., Dessain, S. K., Rosenfeld, M. R., Balice-Gordon, R., & Lynch, D. R. (2008) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(08)70224-2 · Cited by 3,488
Efficiency and Cost of Economical Brain Functional Networks
Achard, S., & Bullmore, E. (2007) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030017 · Cited by 2,553
Metadata
- Authors
- 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. M., & Wouters, E. J. M.
- Venue
- Gerontology
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2015-06-05
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 226-237
- ISSN
- 0304-324X (ISSN-L)
- 1423-0003
- OpenAlex
- W2167311298
- Cited by
- 19,690
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 4925.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- Licence
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (vor)
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000430949
- The paper
- 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. M., & Wouters, E. J. M. (2016). Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place. Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.