The benefits and barriers to technology acquisition: Understanding the decision-making processes of older adults with age-related vision loss (ARVL)

Abstract

Introduction: While research has investigated the factors influencing acquisition and use of technologies/assistive devices by older adults, few studies have addressed the decision-making processes regarding technology adoption of older adults with age-related vision loss. Method: This critical ethnography engaged 10 older adults with age-related vision loss in narrative interviews, participant observation sessions, and semi-structured in-depth interviews to understand their decision-making processes related to the acquisition and use of low vision assistive devices to support occupational engagement. Findings: Study findings focused on the benefits and barriers to technology acquisition and use. Benefits of technology acquisition included: enhanced occupational engagement; independence; safety; insurance; and validation of the disability, while the barriers to technology acquisition included: cost; training; usability; lack of awareness of low vision rehabilitation services; fear of being taken advantage of; and desire to preserve a preferred self-image. Conclusion: Considering the low uptake of vision rehabilitation services, the study findings are important to occupational therapy. A better understanding of the perceived benefits and barriers to technology adoption from the perspective of older adults will help occupational therapists maximize treatment planning designed to enhance the occupational engagement of older adults aging with vision loss.

‘That's for old so and so's!’: does identity influence older adults’ technology adoption decisions?

“…For many older adults, the desire to remain independent stemmed from their wish to not be perceived as a burden to family, friends or society more generally. As such, technologies that enabled or prolonged independent performance in meaningful activities were met with great enthusiasm (Brownsell et al , 2000; Johnson et al , 2007; Horton, 2008; Hernández-Encuentra et al , 2009; Steggell et al , 2010; Van Hoof et al , 2011; Bowes and McColgan, 2013; Gramstad et al , 2014; Claes et al , 2015; Hill et al , 2015; Pino et al , 2015; McGrath and Astell, 2016; Berridge, 2017). For example: Now what could you ask for more than that and you're independent.…”

HabITec: A Sociotechnical Space for Promoting the Application of Technology to Rehabilitation

“…Indeed, for many people with disabilities and their families, ease of setup and comfort of use were the most important factors in their decision about whether or not to use technology [10]. They were most likely to use technology if it was affordable and accessible, although younger people were more likely to be technology-tolerant and the barriers increased for older adults with disabilities [11].…”

“…Ironically, research has shown that the older population might be more willing to learn how to use technology, and in some instances, might be more prevalent users of technology than the younger generation [11]. The role of technology in the lives of the elderly is particularly important to acknowledge, as members of the older population are experiencing changes to their social circumstances with events such as retirement, death of a partner and perhaps physical limitations regarding their health.…”

“…Although there is widespread use of technology by rehabilitation practitioners in Australia, and even those working in rural areas [18], it is primarily used to support client contact, professional development and networking rather than as a core element of rehabilitation interventions. Researchers have documented a surprising lack of knowledge amongst practitioners about technology and how it might be used in rehabilitation, combined with little or no allocated time to learn [17] and minimal access to technology within the centres [11]. In the Netherlands, the implementation of "e-rehabilitation" has been plagued by lack of practitioner time, resources and knowledge, difficulty using technology and lack of perceived benefits, but also by organisational factors such as uncertainty about financial arrangements, privacy concerns and the organisation of care in ways that hinder technology use [19].…”

“…Practitioners in stroke rehabilitation have reported that their use of technology would be positively influenced by strong evidence about its clinical effectiveness [11]. Indeed, research has shown that the opportunities generated by the technological revolution will not be realized in rehabilitation without investment in innovative research that can inform both future and current practice [4].…”