May Technology Support Aging? Diverse Users’ Opinions on Aging and Use of Health-Supporting Technology

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1219)


Populations of many countries in the world are facing new challenges caused by the current demographic shifts, resulting in a strong increase of the part of society aged 65 years and older. Alongside with economic consequences connected to this phenomenon, societies have to provide improved health care standards, accordingly to the higher needs and requirements of seniors. Assistive technologies (e.g., lifelogging technologies) in the health-related context are capable to support some of the challenges arising from a higher life expectancy and offer more autonomous lifestyle of seniors. However, to be successfully adapted such technologies must be well accepted among diverse potential users. This study examines in an online-survey with N = 585 participants current attitudes towards aging and quality of life in old age, as well as indicators of acceptance for health-supporting technologies, which are meant to support seniors and/or persons with chronic disease(s) in their private environments. In addition, this study examines whether user factors like age, gender, and health status significantly affect these opinions. The findings provide valuable insights into these research aims, supporting the understanding of currently changing aging concepts and indicators which contribute to a long-term adoption of medical assistive technology in modern societies.


Aging Medical assistive technology Technology acceptance User diversity 



The authors thank all participants for their contribution in the survey. This work has been funded by the project PAAL, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (reference number 6SV7955).


  1. 1.
    Wilkowska, W., Offermann-Van Heek, J., Brauner, P., Ziefle, M.: Wind of change? Attitudes towards aging and use of medical technology. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health, pp. 80–91. SciTePress, Crete (2019).
  2. 2.
    Pickard, L.: A growing care gap? The supply of unpaid care for older people by their adult children in England to 2032. Ageing Soc. 35(1), 96–123 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deusdad, B.A., Pace, C., Anttonen, A.: Facing the challenges in the development of long-term care for older people in Europe in the context of an economic crisis. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 42(2), 144–150 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haustein, T., Mischke, J., Schönfeld, F., Willand, I.: Older people in Germany and the EU. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rashidi, P., Mihailidis, A.: A survey on ambientassisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 17(3), 579–590 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delello, J.A., McWhorter, R.R.: Reducing the digital divide: connecting older adults to iPad technology. J. Appl. Gerontol. 36(1), 3–28 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demiris, G., Hensel, B.K., Skubic, M., Rantz, M.: Senior residents perceived need of and preferences for smart home sensor technologies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24(1), 120–124 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. The Free Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baltes, P.B.: Theoretical propositions of lifespan developmental psychology: on the dynamics between growth and decline. Dev. Psychol. 23(5), 611–626 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Poulin, M.J., Haase, C.M.: Growing to trust: evidence that trust increases and sustains well-being across the life span. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 6(6), 614–621 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith, A.: Older adults and technology use. Pew Research Center (2014). Accessed 18 Dec 2018
  12. 12.
    Gövercin, M., Meyer, S., Schellenbach, M., Steinhagen-Thiessen, E., Weiss, B., Haesner, M.: SmartSenior@ home: acceptance of an integrated ambient assisted living system. Results of a clinical field trial in 35 households. Inform. Health Soc. Care 41(4), 430–447 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peek, S.T., Wouters, E.J., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K.G., Boeije, H.R., Vrijhoef, H.J.: Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83(4), 235–248 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilkowska, W.: Acceptance of ehealth technology in home environments: advanced studies on user diversity in ambient assisted living. Apprimus Verlag (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beringer, R., Sixsmith, A., Campo, M., Brown, J., McCloskey, R.: The “acceptance” of ambient assisted living: developing an alternate methodology to this limited research lens. In: Abdulrazak, B., Giroux, S., Bouchard, B., Pigot, H., Mokhtari, M. (eds.) ICOST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6719, pp. 161–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Offermann-van Heek, J., Schomakers, E.-M., Ziefle, M.: Bare necessities? How the need for care modulates the acceptance of ambient assisted living technologies. Int. J. Med. Inform. 127, 147–156 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: The surveillance society: which factors form public acceptance of surveillance technologies? In: Helfert, M., Klein, C., Donnellan, B., Gusikhin, O. (eds.) SMARTGREENS/VEHITS -2016. CCIS, vol. 738, pp. 170–191. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart home medical technologies: users requirements for conditional acceptance. i-com 15(1), 39–50 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thompson, A.E., Anisimowicz, Y., Miedema, B., Hogg, W., Wodchis, W.P., Aubrey-Bassler, K.: The influence of gender and other patient characteristics on health care-seeking behaviour: a QUALICOPC study. BMC Fam. Pract. 17(1) (2016). Article number: 38.
  20. 20.
    Arber, S., Vandrevala, T., Daly, T., Hampson, S.: Understanding gender differences in older people’s attitudes towards life-prolonging medical technologies. J. Aging Stud. 22(4), 366–375 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: User diversity as a challenge for the integration of medical technology into future smart home environments. In: Human-Centered Design of E-Health Technologies: Concepts, Methods, and Applications, pp. 95–126. IGI Global (2011).
  22. 22.
    Wilkowska, W., Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: A small but significant difference – the role of gender on acceptance of medical assistive technologies. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 82–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klack, L., Schmitz-Rode, T., Wilkowska, W., Kasugai, K., Heidrich, F., Ziefle, M.: Integrated home monitoring and compliance optimization for patients with mechanical circulatory support devices. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39(12), 2911–2921 (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Heek, J., Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Helpful but spooky? Acceptance of AAL-systems contrasting user groups with focus on disabilities and care needs. In: 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health, pp. 78–90. SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications (2017).
  25. 25.
    van Heek, J., Ziefle, M., Himmel, S.: Caregivers’ perspectives on ambient assisted living technologies in professional care contexts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on ICT for Aging well, pp. 37–48. SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications (2018).
  26. 26.
    Lopez-Otin, C., Blasco, M.A., Partridge, L., Serrano, M., Kroemer, G.: The hallmarks of aging. Cell 153(6), 1194–1217 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jaul, E., Barron, J.: Age-related diseases and clinical and public health implications for the 85 years old and over population. Front. Public Health 5(12), 1–7 (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, A., Kotter-Grhn, D., Smith, J.: Self-perceptions of aging: do subjective age and satisfaction with aging change during old age? J. Gerontol. Ser. B 63(6), 377–385 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kotter-Grühn, D., Hess, T.M.: The impact of age stereotypes on self-perceptions of aging across the adult lifespan. J. Gerontol. Ser. B 61(3), 72–77 (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schreder, G., Smuc, M., Siebenhandl, K., Mayr, E.: Age and computer self-efficacy in the use of digital technologies: an investigation of prototypes for public self-service terminals. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8010, pp. 221–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heinz, M., et al.: Perceptions of technology among older adults. J. Gerontol. Nurs. 39(1), 42–51 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    De Schutter, B., Vanden Abeele, V.: Designing meaningful play within the psycho-social context of older adults. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games, pp. 84–93. Fun and Games, Leuven (2010).
  33. 33.
    Knowles, B., Hanson, V.L.: The wisdom of older technology (non)users. Commun. ACM 61(3), 72–77 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schomakers, E.-M., Offermann-van Heek, J., Ziefle, M.: Attitudes towards aging and the acceptance of ICT for aging in place. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2018. LNCS, vol. 10926, pp. 149–169. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ryan, R.M., Frederick, C.: On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Pers. 65(3), 529–565 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beier, G.: Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik [Locus of control when interacting with technology]. Rep. Psychol. 24(9), 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brown, T.H., Richardson, L.J., Hargrove, T.W., Thomas, C.S.: Using multiple-hierarchy stratification and life course approaches to understand health inequalities: the intersecting consequences of race, gender, SES, and age. J. Health Soc. Behav. 57(2), 200–222 (2016). Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Uhlenberg, P.: International Handbook of Population Aging, 1st edn. Springer, Dordrecht (2009). Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bloom, D.E., Boersch-Supan, A., McGee, P., Seike, A., et al.: Population aging: facts, challenges, and responses. Benefits Compens. Int. 41(1), 22 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bosworth, B.P., Burtless, G.: Aging Societies: The Global Dimension. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. (1998)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kotter-Grühn, D., Kleinspehn-Ammerlahn, A., Gerstorf, D., Smith, J.: Self-perceptions of aging predict mortality and change with approaching death: 16-year longitudinal results from the Berlin Aging Study. Psychol. Aging 24(3), 654–667 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wurm, S., Warner, L.M., Ziegelmann, J.P., Wolff, J.K., Schüz, B.: How do negative self-perceptions of aging become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Psychol. Aging 28(4), 1088–1097 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Boot, W., Charness, N., Czaja, S., Rogers, W., Sharit, J.: Aging and leisure activities: opportunities and design challenges. Innov. Aging 2(1), 213 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lee, C.C., et al.: Attitudes toward computers across adulthood from 1994 to 2013. Gerontologist 59(1), 22–33 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mitzner, T.L., et al.: Technology adoption by older adults: findings from the prism trial. Gerontologist 59(1), 34–44 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Chen, K., Chan, A.H.S.: Gerontechnology acceptance by elderly Hong Kong Chinese: a senior technology acceptance model (STAM). Ergonomics 57(5), 635–652 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations