Advertisement

Technology for All

  • Sebastian MerkelEmail author
  • Rolf G. Heinze
  • Josef Hilbert
  • Gerhard Naegele
Chapter

Abstract

Merkel, Heinze, Hilbert, and Naegele focus on the benefits that modern technology offers for active ageing. The chapter concentrates on three different areas: information and communication technologies (ICT), housing, and mobility. The authors analyse current developments and trends in each of those areas and also focus on challenges. They argue that despite its potential, the adoption, implementation, and diffusion of innovative technologies are behind expectations. Europe is presently facing a deployment gap: research and development efforts on the one hand and only limited market success on the other. The authors explore the reasons for the deployment gap and, moreover, provide examples of good practice and conclude with recommendations for further research as well as implications for policy and practice.

References

  1. AAL Association. (2013). AAL. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from AAL-Toolbox. http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/AALA_ToolboxA5_online.pd
  2. Birken, T., Pelizäus-Hoffmeister, H., & Schweiger, P. (2016). Technische Assistenzsysteme und ihre Konkurrenten: Zur Bedeutung von Praktiken der Alltagsbewältigung für die Technikentwicklung. Zukunft Lebensräume –Kongress 2. Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  3. BMFSFJ. (2016). Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (Hrsg.). Siebter Altenbericht. Sorge und Mitverantwortung in der Kommune. Berlin: Aufbau und Sicherung zukunftsträchtiger Gemeinschaften.Google Scholar
  4. Bouma, H. (2009). Gerontechnology for Serving Needs and Ambitions of Older Adults. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from Innomed. http://www.innomed.no/media/uploads/samhandling_velferdsteknologi_og_innovasjon/Herman_Bouma.pdf
  5. Broens, T., Veld, R., Volenbroek-Hutten, M., Hermens, H., van Halteren, A. T., & Nieuwenhuis, L. J. M. (2007). Determinants of Successful Telemedicine Implementations: A Literature Study. Journal of Telemedicine Telecare, 13, 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DEFRA. (2004). Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Review of the Rural White Paper Our countryside: The Future. DEFRA. https://www.thenbs.com/PublicationIndex/documents/details?DocId=265877
  7. DETR. (2000). Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Our Countryside: The Future. A Fair Deal for Rural England. Rural White Paper. DETR.Google Scholar
  8. DfT. (2012a). Department for Transport: Making Transport More Accessible to All. London. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-transport-more-accessible-to-all
  9. DfT. (2012b). Department for Transport: Green Light for Better Buses. London. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3617/green-light-for-buses.pdf
  10. DfT. (2012c). Transport Solutions for Older People. Information Resource for Local Authorities. London: Department for Transport. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4478/transport-solutions-for-older-people.pdf
  11. Domonkos, T., Horvat, P., Hvozidikova, V., Lichner, I., Miklosovic, T., & Palenik, V. (2013). Modelling the Economic Potential of the Silver Economy. NEUJOBS Working Paper, 12.3. Retrieved from http://www.neujobs.eu/sites/default/files/NEUJOBS%20Working%20Paper_Modelling%20Silver%20Economy_12.3.pdf
  12. Ehlers, A., & Naegele, G. (2017). Soziale Ungleichheit und digitale Inklusion – ein relevantes Thema auch im Alter. In Generali Deutschland AG (Hrsg.). Generali Altersstudie 2017. Wie ältere Menschen in Deutschland denken und leben (pp. 119–122). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Eurofound. (2012). Third European Quality of Life Survey – Quality of Life in Europe: Impacts of the Crisis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2015). Growing the European Silver Economy. European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/active-healthy-ageing/silvereco.pdf
  15. Fiedler, M. (2007). Older People and Public Transport. Challenges and Chances of an Ageing Society. Cologne.Google Scholar
  16. Follmer, R., Gruschwitz, D., Jesske, B., Quandt, S., Lenz, B., Nobis, C., … Mehlin, M. (2010). Mobilität in Deutschland 2008. Bonn: Ergebnisbericht. Struktur – Aufkommen – Emissionen – Trends. INFAS Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
  17. Gast, R. (2013). Der unsichtbare Pfleger. Ingenieure und Informatiker haben einen Traum: Hightech soll im Alltag über die Gesundheit alter Menschen wachen. Es wird geforscht, getestet und nach Geldgebern gesucht, 11.Google Scholar
  18. GdW, InWIS, & SIBIS. (2015). Technische Assistenzsysteme für ältere Menschen – eine Zukunftsstrategie für die Bau- und Wohnungswirtschaft. Berlin: GdW.Google Scholar
  19. Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian, T. (2016). Achieving Research Impact Through Co-creation in Community-Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study. The Milbank Quartley, 392–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinze, R. G. (2015). Wohn- und Lebensformen im Alter: Selbstständigkeit erhalten. Integration fördern Der Bürger im Staat, 2–3.Google Scholar
  21. Heinze, R. G. (2016). Digitalisierung und Wohnen: das vernetzte Zuhause und individualisierte Technologien als Option für das Wohnen im Alter. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 64(4), 443–471.Google Scholar
  22. Heinze, R., & Naegele, G. (2013). Social Innovations in Ageing Societies. In H. W. Frantz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge Social Innovations (pp. 153–168). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Heinze, R. G., Naegele, G., & Schneiders, K. (2011). Wirtschaftliche Potenziale des Alters. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  24. Henke, K.-D., & Troppens, S. (2010). Zur Finanzierung assistierender Technologien. In U. Fachinger & K.-D. Henke (Eds.), Der private Haushalt als Gesundheitsstandort Theoretische und empirische Analysen (pp. 135–146). Baden-Baden: Nomos-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Highlevel Group on Innovation Policy Management (HLGIPM). (2013). Report and Recommendations. Online: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/4bc46b_35ca1b1f47514d2a85c794f8be5ebeb2.pdf
  26. Hoffmann, R. (2008). Socioeconomic Differences in Old Age Mortality. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hradil, S. (2001). Soziale Ungleichheit in Deutschland. Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  28. Lang, A. (2018). Herausforderung erkannt – Sozialverband VdK unterstützt Mitglieder und Bürger beim Einsatz technischer Hilfen im Alltag. Vortragsmanuskript. Berlin: Fachkonferenz „Kommunen in der alternden Gesellschaft“.Google Scholar
  29. Lupton, D. (2016). The Quantified Self. A Sociology of Self-Tracking. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  30. MEC. (2013). Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (2013). Spain: Estrategia Española de Ciencia y Tecnología y de Innovación 2013–2020.Google Scholar
  31. Merkel, S., & Enste, P. (2015). Barriers to the Diffusion of Telecare and Telehealth in the EU: A Literature Review. Institution of Engineering and Technology: IET International Conference on Technologies for Active and Assisted Living (TechAAL), London, p. 6.Google Scholar
  32. Merkel, S., Enste, P., Hilbert, J., Chen, K., Chan, A., & Kwon, S. (2016). Technology Acceptance and Aging. In S. Kwon (Ed.), Gerontechnology. Research, Practice, and Principles in the Field of Technology and Aging. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Ministry of Infrastructure. (2005). National Transport Policy for 2006–2025. Poland.Google Scholar
  34. Mollenkopf, H. (2016). Societal Aspects and Individual Preconditions of Technological Development. Geron, 15(4), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2016.15.4.011.00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mollenkopf, H., & Kaspar, R. (2005). Elderly People’s Use and Acceptance of Information and Communication Technologies. In B. Jaeger (Eds.), Young Technologies in Old Hands – An Unternatuional View on Senior Citizens’ Utilization of ICT (pp. 41–58). Copenhagen: DJOF Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Mollenkopf, H., Meyer, S., Schulze, E., Wurm, S., & Friesdorf, W. (2000). Technik im Haushalt zur Unterstützung einer selbstbestimmten Lebensführung im Alter [Everyday Technologies for Senior Households]. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 33(3), 155–168.Google Scholar
  37. MTC. (2008). Ministry of Transport and Communications: Transport Policy Guidelines and Transport Network Investment and Financing Programme Until 2020 – Government Transport Policy Report to Parliament. MTC.Google Scholar
  38. Naegele, G., & Bauknecht, J. (2017). Final Report for WP3 (“Employment”): Strategies for Extending Working Lives, Raising Older Workers Employment Rates and Intensifying Lifelong Learning. Dortmund: Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  39. Oswald, F., & Wahl, H. -W. (2016). Alte und neue Umwelten des Alterns – Zur Bedeutung von Wohnen und Technologie für Teilhabe in der späten Lebensphase. In E. Naegele, A. Olbermann, & A. Kuhlmnn (Eds.), Teilhabe im Alter gestalten. Wiesbaden: Sprigner VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peine, A., & Neven, L. (2011). Social-Structural Lag Revisited. Geron, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2011.10.3.002.00.
  41. Reginatto, B. (2012). Understanding Barriers to Wider Telehealth Adoption in the Home Environment of Older People: An Exploratory Study in the Irish Context. International Journal on Advances in Life Sciences, 4(3&4), 63–76.Google Scholar
  42. Selke, S. (2016). Lifelogging. Digitale Selbstvermessung und Lebensprotokollierung zwischen disruptiver Technologie und kulturellem Wandel. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  43. van Bronswijk, J., Bouma, H., Fozard, J. L., Kearns, W. D., Davison, G. C., & Tuan, P.-C. (2009). Defining Gerontechnology for R&D Purposes. Geron, 1. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2009.08.01.002.00.
  44. van den Berg, N., Schmidt, U., Stentzel, H., Mühlan, W., & Hoffman, R. (2015). Telemedizinische Versorgungskonzepte in der regionalen Versorgung ländlicher Gebiete. Möglichkeiten, Einschränkungen, Perspektiven. Bundesgesundheitsblatt.Google Scholar
  45. Webber, S. C., Porter, M., & Menec, V. H. (2010). Mobility in Older Adults: A Comprehensive Framework. The Gerontologist, 50, 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wherton, J. P., & Monk, A. F. (2008). Technological Opportunities for Supporting People with Dementia Who Are Living at Home. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(8), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Procter, R., Hinder, S., & Greenhalgh, T. (2015). Co-production in practice. How people with assisted living needs can help design and evolve technologies and services. Implementation Science, 10(75). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0271-8.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Merkel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rolf G. Heinze
    • 2
  • Josef Hilbert
    • 1
  • Gerhard Naegele
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Work and TechnologyWestphalian University of Applied SciencesGelsenkirchenGermany
  2. 2.Ruhr-University BochumBochumGermany
  3. 3.Research Association for GerontologyTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations