Sight loss adversely affects older adults’ ( 65 years) ability to complete daily activities. Digital technology can support functional performance but literature focusing on its use by older people with sight loss is limited.
OBJECTIVE:
To explore the meaning of digital technology, including factors influencing its adoption, from the perspectives of older adults with sight loss.
METHOD:
In-depth data was generated via a focus group ( 4) and analysed using thematic analysis. In addition, a questionnaire survey ( 30) increased breadth of knowledge regarding digital device adoption.
RESULTS:
Following thematic analysis, digital technology was equated with complexity. Portable, easy-to-use technology and devices enabling meaningful outcomes were favoured. Barriers to adoption included: high cost, lack of accessible information, unreliability and constantly changing products. Conversely, resource exchange and an interest in technology facilitated acceptance. Physical properties, user interface, accessibility and practical experience concurrently hindered and supported device use. Survey results indicate that most non-digital adopters were 80 years old, and commonly cited reasons were ‘lack of interest’ and ‘too difficult to use’.
CONCLUSION:
Older adults with sight loss may be at particular risk of deeming digital technology to be inaccessible. Family and/or peer influence and experimenting with a device could challenge negative preconceptions.
World health Organisation [homepage on the internet]. Ageing and Health. Fact sheet No 404; 2015 [cited 2016 Nov 7]. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs404/en/.
2.
OngBBAh-FatFG. Age related macular degeneration. British Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2016; 77(2): 18-21.
3.
Royal National Institute for the Blind [homepage on the internet]. Key information and statistics; 2016 [cited 2016 Oct 4]. Available from: http:/www.rnig.org.uk/knowledge-and-research-hub/key-information-and-statistics.
4.
CimarolliVRJoppDS. Sensory impairment and their associations with functional disability in a sample of the oldest-old. Quality of Life Research. 2014; 23: 1977-1984.
5.
KempenGIJMBallemansJRanchorAVvan RensGHMBRixt ZijlstraGA. The impact of low vision on activities of daily living, symptoms of depression, feelings of anxiety and social support in community-living older adults seeking vision rehabilitation services. Quality of Life Research. 2012; 21: 1405-1411.
6.
BergerSPorellF. The association between low vision and function. Journal of Ageing and Health. 2008; 20(5): 504-525.
7.
EvansJRFletcherAEWormaldRPL. Depression and anxiety in visually impaired older people. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114(2): 283-288.
8.
TravisLABoernerKReinhardtJPHorowitzA. Exploring functional disability in older adults with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. 2004; 98(9): 534-545.
9.
JutaiJWStrongGRussell-MindsE. Effectiveness of assistive technologies for low vision rehabilitation: a systematic review. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2009; 103(4): 210-222.
10.
CopolilloATeitelmanJL. Acquisition and integration of low vision assistive devices: understanding the decision-making process of older adults with low vision. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2005; 59(3): 305-313.
11.
Royal National Institute for the Blind [homepage on the internet]. What Assistive Technology is available? 2014 [cited 2016 Oct 6]. Available from: https://help.rnib.org.uk/help/daily-living/technology/technology-assistive.
12.
FokDMiller PolgarJShawLJutaiJW. Low vision assistive technology device usage and importance in daily occupations. Work. 2011; 39: 37-48.
13.
HakobyanLLumsdenJO’SullivanDBartlettH. Mobile assistive technologies for the visually impaired. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2012; 58(6): 513-528.
14.
McGrathCEAstellA. The benefits and barriers to technology acquisition: understanding the decision-making processes of older adults with age-related vision loss (ARVL). British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017; 80(2): 123-131.
15.
DouglasGCorcoranCPaveyS. The role of the WHO ICF as a framework to interpret barriers and to inclusion: visually impaired people’s views and experiences of personal computers. The British Journal of Visual Impairment. 2007; 25(1): 32-50.
16.
CrosslandMDSilvaRSMacedoAF. Smartphone, tablet computer and e-reader use by people with vision impairment. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. 2014; 34: 552-557.
17.
van der GeestTvan der MeijHvan PuffelenC. Self-assessed and actual internet skills of people with visual impairments. Universal Access in the Information Society. 2013; 13(2): 161-174.
18.
ChangJMcAllisterCMcCaslinR. Correlates of and barriers to internet use among older adults. Journal of Gerontological Social Work. 2015; 58(1): 66-85.
19.
BrymanA. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
20.
O’CathainAThomasK. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In: PopeCMaysN, eds. Qualitative Research in Health Care. 3rd ed. Malden, Mass; Oxford: BMJ; 2006.
21.
American Occupational Therapy Association [homepage on the internet]. AOTA Classification Codes for Continuing Education Activities; 2014 [cited 2016 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.aota.org/∼/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/APP/AOTAClassificationCodesforCE-Companion.pdf.
22.
DoodyOSlevinETaggartL. Focus group interviews part 3: Analysis. British Journal of Nursing. 2013; 22(5): 266-269.
23.
RitchieJSpencerLO’ConnorW. Carrying out Qualitative Analysis. In: RitchieJLewisJ, eds. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage publications; 2003.
24.
CookAMPolgarJM. Cook and Hussey’s Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. 3rd ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2008.
25.
VromanKGArthanatSLysackC. “Who over 65 is online?” Older adults’ dispositions toward information communication technology. Computers in Human Behaviour. 2015; 43: 156-166.
26.
Bender PapeLKimJWeinerB. The shaping of individual meaning assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2002; 24: 5-20.
27.
GitlowL. Technology use by older adults and barriers to using technology. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics. 2014; 32(3): 271-280.
28.
Pew Research Centre [homepage on the internet]. Smith A. Older adults and Technology Use; 2014 [cited 2017 Jan 30]. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/03/older-adults-and-technology-use/.
29.
KaldenbergJSmallfieldS. Training older adults with low vision to use a computer tablet: a feasibility study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2016; 80(2): 117-122.
30.
BarnardYBradleyMDHodgsonFLloydAD. Learning to use new technologies by older adults: Perceived difficulties, experimentation behaviour and usability. Computers in Human Behaviour. 2013; 29: 1715-1724.
31.
PiperAMBrewerRCornejoR. Technology learning and use among older adults with late-life vision impairments. Universal Access in the Information Society. 2016; October: 1-13.
32.
WangLPei-LuenRPSalvendyG. Older adults’ acceptance of information technology. Educational Gerontology. 2011; 37: 1081-1099.
33.
TsaiHSShillairRCottenSR. Social support and “playing around”: an examination of how older adults acquire digital literacy with tablet computers. Journal of Applied Gernotology. 2015; 36(1): 29-55.
34.
GreenhalghTWhertonJSugarhoodPHinderSProcterRStonesR. What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Social Science & Medicine. 2013; 93: 86-94.
35.
Vanden AbeeleMde CockRRoeK. Blind faith in the web? Internet use and empowerment among visually and hearing impaired adults: a qualitative study of benefits and barriers. Communications. 2012; 37: 129-151.
