The contribution of home-based technology to older people's quality of life in extra care housing

BMC Geriatrics

Kevin McKee¹  Stuart G Parker²  Hossein Matlabi³ 

[1] Gerontology Centre, Dalarna Research Institute, Myntgatan 2, 79151 Falun, Sweden;Sheffield Institute for Studies on Ageing, The University of Sheffield, 217 Portobello, Sheffield S1 4DP, UK;Department of Health Education and Promotion, Faculty of Health and Nutrition, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, P.C.: 5166614711, Iran

关键词: Extra Care Housing;    Well-Being;    Quality of Life;    Assistive Technology;    Older People;    Home-Based Technology;   

Others  :  858220
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2318-11-68

 received in 2010-12-13, accepted in 2011-10-31,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

British government policy for older people focuses on a vision of active ageing and independent living. In the face of diminishing personal capacities, the use of appropriate home-based technology (HBT) devices could potentially meet a wide range of needs and consequently improve many aspects of older people's quality of life such as physical health, psychosocial well-being, social relationships, and their physical or living environment. This study aimed to examine the use of HBT devices and the correlation between use of such devices and quality of life among older people living in extra-care housing (ECH).

Methods

A structured questionnaire was administered for this study. Using purposive sampling 160 older people living in extra-care housing schemes were selected from 23 schemes in England. A face-to-face interview was conducted in each participant's living unit. In order to measure quality of life, the SEIQoL-Adapted and CASP-19 were used.

Results

Although most basic appliances and emergency call systems were used in the living units, communally provided facilities such as personal computers, washing machines, and assisted bathing equipment in the schemes were not well utilised. Multiple regression analysis adjusted for confounders including age, sex, marital status, living arrangement and mobility use indicated a coefficient of 1.17 with 95% CI (0.05, 2.29) and p = 0.04 [SEIQoL-Adapted] and 2.83 with 95% CI (1.17, 4.50) and p = 0.001 [CASP-19].

Conclusions

The findings of the present study will be value to those who are developing new form of specialised housing for older people with functional limitations and, in particular, guiding investments in technological aids. The results of the present study also indicate that the home is an essential site for developing residential technologies.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Matlabi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Age Concern: Older people in the UK: Key facts and statistics 2008. [http://eurolinkage.org/AgeConcern/Documents/Keyfacts2008.pdf] webcite
• [2]Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey 2006. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=5756] webcite
• [3]World Health Organisation: Prevention of mental disorders in the elderly. WHO, Copenhagen; 1977.
• [4]Royal Commission on Long Term Care: With Respect to Old Age: Long Term Care -Rights and Responsibilities. The Stationery Office, London; 1999.
• [5]Iliffe S, Tai SS, Haines A, Gallivan S, Goldenberg E, Booroff A, et al.: Are elderly people living alone an at risk group? BMJ 1992, 305(24):1001-1004.
• [6]Grundy E, Young H: Older people who live alone more likely to be unhappy. [http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2007/olderpeopleeurope.html] webcite
• [7]Curry RG, Tinoco M T, Wardle D: The Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to Support Independent Living for Older and Disabled People. [http://www.rehabtool.com/forum/discussions/ictuk02.pdf] webcite
• [8]Department of Health: Extra Care Housing. [http:/ / www.dh.gov.uk/ en/ SocialCare/ Deliveringadultsocialcare/ Housing/ DH_083199] webcite
• [9]Care Services Improvement Partnership & Department of Health: The extra care housing toolkit. London. 2006.
• [10]Audit Commission: Implementing telecare strategic analysis and guidelines for policy makers, commissioners and providers. London. 2004.
• [11]Nygård L: The meaning of everyday technology as experienced by people with dementia who live alone. Dementia 2008, 7:482-502.
• [12]Burton JR: Household Technology: Implications for Research and Policy. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 1992., 13(4)
• [13]Agree EM, Freedman VA, Sengupta M: Factors Influencing the Use of Mobility Technology in Community-Based Long-Term Care. J Aging Health 2004, 16(2):267-307.
• [14]Cowan D, Turner-Smith A: The Role of Assistive Technology in Alternative Models of Care for Older People. King's College London; 1999.
• [15]Audit Commission: Assistive technology Independence and well-being. London. 2004.
• [16]Blackburn S, Brownsell S, Hawley M: Assistive Technology for Independence (AT4I): Executive Summary. Barnsley, UK; 2006.
• [17]Department of Health: Research and development work relating to assistive technology 2008-09. Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
• [18]Cheek P, Nikpour L, Nowlin HD: Aging Well With Smart Technology. Nursing Administration Quarterly 2005, 29(4):329-338.
• [19]Poole T: Telecare and older people. King's Fund, London; 2006.
• [20]Charness N, Park DC, Sabel BA, (Eds.): Communication, technology and aging: Opportunities and challenges for the future. New York, Springer; 2001:1-29.
• [21]Elderly Accommodation Counsel: Statistics on Housing with Care in England. London. 2008.
• [22]Wiggins RD, Higgs PFD, Hyde M, Blane DB: Quality of life in the third age: key predictors of the CASP-19 measure. Ageing & Society 2004, 24:693-708.
• [23]Taylor R, Conway L, Calderwood L, Lessof C, Cheshire H, Cox K, et al.: Health, wealth and lifestyles of the older population in England: The 2002 English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. National Centre for Social Research. London; 2007.
• [24]McKee KJ, Parker SG, Elvish J, Clubb VJ, Nahas ME, Kendray E, et al.: The quality of life of older and younger people who receive renal replacement therapy. Ageing & Society 2005, 25:903-923.
• [25]Browne JP, O'Boyle CA, McGee HM, McDonald NJ, Joyce CRB: Development of a direct weighting procedure for quality of life domains. Quality of Life Research 1997, 6:301-9.
• [26]Wagner J: Acceptability of the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weight (SEIQoL-DW) in youth with type 1 diabetes. Quality of Life Research 2004, 13:1279-85.
• [27]McKee KJ, Houston DM, Barnes S: Methods for Assessing Quality of Life and Well-Being in Frail Older People. Psychology & Health 2002, 17(6):737-51.
• [28]Tomita MR, Mann WC, Fraas LF, Stanton KM: Predictors of the Use of Assistive Devices that Address Physical Impairments Among Community-Based Frail Elders. Journal of Applied Gerontology 2004., 23(141)
• [29]Xie B: Older adults, computers, and the Internet. Gerontechnology 2003, 2(4):289-305.
• [30]Verbrugge LM, Rennert C, Madans JH: The great efficacy of personal and equipment assistance in reducing disability. American Journal of Public Health 1997, 87(3):384-392.
• [31]Mann W C, 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
• [32]Freedman VA, Martin LG, Schoeni RF: Recent Trends in Disability and Functioning Among Older Adults in the United States: A Systematic Review. JAMA 288 2002, 24:3137-3146.
• [33]Hoenig H, Taylor DH, Sloan FA: Does Assistive Technology Substitute for Personal Assistance among the Disabled Elderly? American Journal of Public Health 2003., 93(2)
• [34]Hartke RJ, Prohaska TR, Furner SE: Older adults and assistive devices: Use, multiple-device use, and need. Journal of Aging and Health 1998, 10(1):99-116.