Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 676–686 | Cite as

Hispanic Older Adult’s Perceptions of Personal, Contextual and Technology-Related Barriers for Using Assistive Technology Devices

  • Elsa M. Orellano-Colón
  • William C. Mann
  • Marta Rivero
  • Mayra Torres
  • Jeff Jutai
  • Angélica Santiago
  • Nelson Varas
Article

Abstract

Assistive technologies (AT) are tools that enhance the independence, safety, and quality of life of older people with functional limitations. While AT may extend independence in ageing, there are racial and ethnic disparities in late-life AT use, with lower rates reported among Hispanic older populations. The aim of this study was to identify barriers experienced by Hispanic community-living older adults for using AT. Sixty Hispanic older adults (70 years and older) with functional limitations participated in this study. A descriptive qualitative research design was used guided by the principles of the Human Activity Assistive Technology Model to gain in-depth understanding of participants’ perspectives regarding barriers to using AT devices. Individual in-depth semi-structure interviews were conducted, using the Assistive Technology Devices Cards (ATDC) assessment as a prompt to facilitate participants’ qualitative responses. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and rigorous thematic content analysis. Lack of AT awareness and information, cost of AT, limited coverage of AT by heath care plans, and perceived complexity of AT were the predominant barriers experienced by the participants. A multi-level approach is required for a better understanding of the barriers for using AT devices. The personal, contextual, and activity-based barriers found in this study can be used to develop culturally sensitive AT interventions to reduce existent disparities in independent living disabilities among older Hispanics.

Keywords

Health disparities Race Hispanic Assistive technology Disabilities Barriers 

References

  1. 1.
    United States Census Bureau. International data base. 2013. http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php. Accessed December 21 2014.
  2. 2.
    Erickson W, Lee C, von Schrader S. Disability statistics from the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute (EDI). 2014. www.disabilitystatistics.org. Accessed 1 March 2015.
  3. 3.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mann WC, Ottenbacher KJ, Fraas L, Tomita M, Granger CV. Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. A randomized controlled trial. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:210–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pew R, Van Hemel S. Technology for adapting aging. Washington DC: National Academies Beswick Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beswick AD, Rees K, Dieppe P, Ayis S, Gooberman-Hill R, Horwood J, Ebrahim S. Complex interventions to improve physical function and maintain independent living in elderly people: a systematic review. Lancet. 2008;371:725–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilson DJ, Mitchell JM, Kemp BJ, Adkins RH, Mann W. Effects of assistive technology on functional decline in people aging with disabilities. Assist Technol. 2009;21:208–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freedman VA, Martin LG, Cornman J, Agree E, Schoeni RF. Trends in assistance with daily activities: racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities persist in the U.S. older population. In: Cutler DM, Wise DA, editors. Health at older ages: the causes and consequences of declining disability among the elderly. University of Chicago Press; 2009. pp. 411–438.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartke RJ, Prohaska TR, Furner SE. Older adults and assistive devices: use, multiple-device use, and need. J Aging Health. 1998;10:99–116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tomita MR, Mann WC, Fraas LF, Stanton KM. Predictors of the use of assistive devices that address physical impairments among community-based frail elders. J Appl Gerontol. 2004;23:141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Resnik L, Allen SM. Racial and ethnic differences in the use of assistive devices for mobility: effect modification by age. J Aging Health. 2006;18:106–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kayen HS, Yeager P, Reed M. Disparities in usage of assistive technology among people with disabilities. Assist Technol. 2008;20:194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Connell J, Grealy C, Olver K, Power J. Comprehensive scoping study on the use of assistive technology by frail older people living in the community, Urbis for the Department of Health and Ageing. Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing: Canberra; 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCready C, Tinker A. The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing Soc. 2005;25:91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peek S, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:235–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiu CWY, Mann WC. The effect of training older adults with stroke to use home-based assistive devices. OTJR. 2004;24:113–20.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5:36–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mann WC, Goodall S, Justiss MD, Tomita M. Dissatisfaction and nonuse of assistive devices among frail elders. Assist Technol. 2002;14:130–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mann WC, Karuza J, Hurren D, Tomita M. Needs of home-based older persons for assistive devices: the University at Buffalo rehabilitation engineering center on aging consumer assessment study. Technology and Disability. 1993;2:1–11.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Resnik L, Allen S, Insenstadt D, Wasserman M, Lezonni L. Perspectives on Use of Mobility Aids in a Diverse Population of Seniors: Implications for Intervention. Disabil Health J. 2009;2:77–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Merriam SB. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cook A, Miller JM. Cook & Hussey’s assistive technologies: principles and practice. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2008.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18:59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morse JM. Designing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994. p. 220–35.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Crum RM, Anthony JC, Bassett SS, Folstein MF. Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by age and educational level. J Am Med Assoc. 1993;18:2386–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bird HR, Canino G, Stipec MR, Shrout P. Use of the Mini-mental State Examination in a probability sample of a Hispanic population. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1987;175:731–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patton MQ Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barett L. Halthy@home: AARP foundation. 2008.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gitlow L Technology use by older adults and barriers to using technology. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2014;32:271–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ocepek J, Prosic Z, Vidamar G. Assistive technology and its role among the elderly—a survey. Informatica Medica Slovenica. 2012;17:9–15.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Waldron D, Layton N. Hard and soft assistive technologies: defining roles for clinicians. Aust Occup Ther J. 2008;55:61–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mann WC, Granger C, Hurren D, Tomita M, Charvat B. An analysis of problems with canes encountered by elderly persons. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 1995;13:25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Steggell CD, Hooker K, Bowman S, Choun S, Kim SJ. The role of technology for healthy aging among Korean and Hispanic women in the United States: a pilot study. Gerontechnology. 2010;9:433–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations. 1995;19:41–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare coverage of durable medical equipment and other devices. 2008. http://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/11045.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2015.
  37. 37.
    Carlson D, Berland B. Highlights from the NIDRR/RESNA/University of Michigan survey of assistive technology and information technology use and need by persons with disabilities in the United States. 2007. http://www.resna.org/taproject/library/bibl/highlights.html. Accessed 21 November 2014.
  38. 38.
    Layton N Barriers and facilitators to community mobility for assistive technology users. Rehabil Res Pract. 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/454195.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Commission for the Assessment of the Health System of the Puerto Rico Commonwealth. Assessment of the Puerto Rico health system. 2005. https://apoyoalcuidador.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/informe_final_sist_salud_pr_gobernador.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2015.
  40. 40.
    Center for Technology and Aging. Assistive technologies for functional improvement. 2010. http://www.techandaging.org/AssistivedraftTechnologyReview.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2015.
  41. 41.
    Baker J, Bass G. Assistive technology and older adults: the journey through caregiving. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. 2003. http://www.ndsu.edu/ndsu/aging/ caregiver/pdf/assistive/manual.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  42. 42.
    Skymne C, Dahlin-Ivanoff S, Claesson L, Eklund K. Getting used to assistive devices: ambivalent experiences by frail elderly persons. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19:194–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elsa M. Orellano-Colón
    • 1
  • William C. Mann
    • 2
  • Marta Rivero
    • 3
  • Mayra Torres
    • 4
  • Jeff Jutai
    • 5
  • Angélica Santiago
    • 6
  • Nelson Varas
    • 7
  1. 1.Occupational Therapy Program, School of Health ProfessionsUniversity of Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences CampusSan JuanPuerto Rico
  2. 2.Department of Occupational TherapyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.School of NursingMedical Sciences Campus, University of Puerto RicoSan JuanPuerto Rico
  4. 4.Puerto Rico Assistive Technology ProgramUniversity of Puerto RicoSan JuanPuerto Rico
  5. 5.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  6. 6.Occupational Therapy Program, School of Health ProfessionsMedical Sciences Campus, University of Puerto RicoSan JuanPuerto Rico
  7. 7.Graduate School of Social WorkUniversity of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras CampusSan JuanPuerto Rico

Personalised recommendations