Cited by 91Technology Use by Older AdultsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Too old for technology? Use of wearable healthcare devices by older adults and their willingness to share health data with providers

Open access
Chandrasekaran, Ranganathan, Katthula, Vipanchi, Moustakas, Evangelos·2021·Health Informatics Journal

Abstract

Wearable healthcare devices offer tremendous promise to effectively track and improve the well-being of older adults. Yet, little is known about the use of wearable devices by older adults. Drawing upon a national survey in US with 1481 older adults, we examine the use of wearable healthcare devices and the key predictors of use viz. sociodemographic factors, health conditions, and technology self-efficacy. We also examine if the predictors are associated with elders’ willingness to share health data from wearable devices with healthcare providers. We find low level of wearable use (17.49%) among US older adults. We find significant positive associations between technology self-efficacy, health conditions, and demographic factors (gender, race, education, and annual household income) and use of wearable devices. Men were less likely (OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.36–1.04) and Asians were more likely (OR = 2.60, 95% CI 0.89–7.64) to use wearables, as did healthy adults (OR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.37–2.87). Those who electronically communicated with their doctors (OR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.16–2.97), and those who searched online for health information (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.03–3.10) were more likely to use wearables. Though 80.15% of wearable users are willing to share health data with providers, those with greater technology self-efficacy and favorable attitudes toward exercise are more willing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/14604582211058073

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chandrasekaran, R., Katthula, V., & Moustakas, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • Middlesex University Dubai (AE)
Corresponding author
Chandrasekaran, Ranganathan
Venue
Health Informatics Journal
Published
2021-10
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
14604582211058073-14604582211058073
ISSN
  • 1355-4743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-4582
  • 1741-2811
OpenAlex
W3215123716
Cited by
90
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11
FWCI
20.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Informatics Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
wearable healthcare devices, older adults, technology self-efficacy, health data sharing, health conditions, gender differences, race and ethnicity, online health information seeking, exercise attitudes, health information technology adoption
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Sociodemographic Factors, Aged, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Technology

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