Cited by 86Technology Use by Older AdultsAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityAging, Health, and Disability

Understanding changes and stability in the long-term use of technologies by seniors who are aging in place: a dynamical framework

Open access
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Vrijhoef, H. J. M., Nieboer, M. E., Aarts, S., van der Voort, C. S., Rijnaard, M. D., Wouters, E. J. M.·2019·BMC Geriatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: If technologies are to support aging in place, then it is important to develop fundamental knowledge on what causes stability and changes in the use of technologies by seniors. However, longitudinal studies on the long-term use of technologies that have been accepted into the home (i.e., post-implementation use) are very scarce. Many factors potentially could influence post-implementation use, including life events, age-related decline, changes in personal goal orientation, and various types of social influences. The aforementioned factors are likely to be interrelated, adding to the complexity. The goal of this study is to better understand changes and stability in the use of technologies by independent-living seniors, by using a dynamical systems theory approach. METHODS: A longitudinal qualitative field study was conducted involving home visits to 33 community-dwelling seniors in the Netherlands, on three occasions (2012-2014). Interviews were held on technology usage patterns, including reasons for stable, increased, declined and stopped use. Technologies were included if they required electric power in order to function, were intended to be used in or around the home, and could support activities of daily living, personal health or safety, mobility, communication, and physical activity. Thematic analysis was employed, using constant case comparison to better understand dynamics and interplay between factors. In total, 148 technology use patterns by 33 participants were analyzed. RESULTS: A core of six interrelated factors was closely linked to the frequency of technology use: emotional attachment, need compatibility, cues to use, proficiency to use, input of resources, and support. Additionally, disruptive forces (e.g., social influences, competition with alternative means, changes of personal needs) could induce change by affecting these six factors. Furthermore, long-term technology use was in some cases more resilient to disruption than in other cases. Findings were accumulated in a new framework: Dynamics In Technology Use by Seniors (DITUS). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to aging, the use of technologies by older people is complex, dynamic and personal. Periods of stability and change both occur naturally. The DITUS framework can aid in understanding stability and instability of technology use, and in developing and implementing sustainable technological solutions for aging in place.

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 · 10.1186/s12877-019-1241-9

Cites

63 of 63 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?

  • With adequate support, the older population of various capacities can adapt to using different technologies.

    “These findings have aligned with emerging evidence that with adequate support, the older population of various capacities can adapt to using different technologies (Peek et al., 2019; Talbot & Briggs, 2022).”

    From Facilitators and Barriers to Using Virtual Reality and its Impact on Social Engagement in Aged Care Settings: A Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as Peek et al., 2019

    The Results (Shifts to other states of use) say that continued technology use depended in part on how effectively participants and external supporters responded to disruption. The Methods (Sampling) describe participants with varied health and technology experience, but exclude people with cognitive impairment. The paper therefore supports a role for support in adapting technology use, not the broader suggestion that adequate support enables older people across capacities to adapt to different technologies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. [10]Rogers WA Mayhorn BC Fisk AD Burdick DC Kwon S Technology in Everyday Life for Older adults Gerotechnology: research and practice in technology and aging 2004 New York Springer 3 17
  2. [29]Kempen GIJM Brilman EI Ormel J De Mini-Mental State Examination. Normeringsgegevens en een vergelijking van een 12- en 20- item versie in een steekproef ouderen uit de bevolking Tijdschr Geront Geriatr 1995 26 163 172 7570796

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Vrijhoef, H. J. M., Nieboer, M. E., Aarts, S., van der Voort, C. S., Rijnaard, M. D., & Wouters, E. J. M.
Affiliations
  • Tilburg University (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • Fontys University of Applied Sciences (NL)
Corresponding author
Peek, S. T. M.
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2019-08-28
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
236-236
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2971285830
Cited by
84
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9
FWCI
23.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Geriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
SIA (RAAK PRO-3-37)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
aging in place, older adults, home technology use, technology adoption, technology use patterns, dynamical systems theory, emotional attachment, user proficiency, social influence, resilience, independent living, activities of daily living, assistive technology
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Computer User Training, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Microcomputers, Motivation, Netherlands, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies, Technology, Qualitative Research, 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