Hispanic Older Adult’s Perceptions of Personal, Contextual and Technology-Related Barriers for Using Assistive Technology Devices
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.
KeywordsHealth disparities Race Hispanic Assistive technology Disabilities Barriers
- 1.United States Census Bureau. International data base. 2013. http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php. Accessed December 21 2014.
- 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.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
- 5.Pew R, Van Hemel S. Technology for adapting aging. Washington DC: National Academies Beswick Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 21.Merriam SB. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009.Google Scholar
- 22.Cook A, Miller JM. Cook & Hussey’s assistive technologies: principles and practice. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2008.Google Scholar
- 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
- 28.Patton MQ Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.Google Scholar
- 29.Barett L. Halthy@home: AARP foundation. 2008.Google Scholar
- 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
- 35.Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technology. Generations. 1995;19:41–7.Google Scholar
- 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.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.
- 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.Center for Technology and Aging. Assistive technologies for functional improvement. 2010. http://www.techandaging.org/AssistivedraftTechnologyReview.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2015.
- 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.