Nancy M Gell1, Dori E Rosenberg2, George Demiris3, Andrea Z LaCroix4, Kushang V Patel5. 1. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. gell.n@ghc.org. 2. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle. 3. Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Systems, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle. 4. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 5. Center for Pain Research on Impact, Measurement and Effectiveness, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to describe prevalence of technology use among adults ages 65 and older, particularly for those with disability and activity-limiting symptoms and impairments. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative sample of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (N = 7,609), were analyzed. Analysis consisted of technology use (use of e-mail/text messages and the internet) by sociodemographic and health characteristics and prevalence ratios for technology usage by disability status. RESULTS: Forty percent of older adults used e-mail or text messaging and 42.7% used the internet. Higher prevalence of technology use was associated with younger age, male sex, white race, higher education level, and being married (all p values <.001). After adjustment for sociodemographic and health characteristics, technology use decreased significantly with greater limitations in physical capacity and greater disability. Vision impairment and memory limitations were also associated with lower likelihood of technology use. IMPLICATIONS: Technology usage in U.S. older adults varied significantly by sociodemographic and health status. Prevalence of technology use differed by the type of disability and activity-limiting impairments. The internet, e-mail, and text messaging might be viable mediums for health promotion and communication, particularly for younger cohorts of older adults and those with certain types of impairment and less severe disability.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to describe prevalence of technology use among adults ages 65 and older, particularly for those with disability and activity-limiting symptoms and impairments. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the 2011 National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative sample of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (N = 7,609), were analyzed. Analysis consisted of technology use (use of e-mail/text messages and the internet) by sociodemographic and health characteristics and prevalence ratios for technology usage by disability status. RESULTS: Forty percent of older adults used e-mail or text messaging and 42.7% used the internet. Higher prevalence of technology use was associated with younger age, male sex, white race, higher education level, and being married (all p values <.001). After adjustment for sociodemographic and health characteristics, technology use decreased significantly with greater limitations in physical capacity and greater disability. Vision impairment and memory limitations were also associated with lower likelihood of technology use. IMPLICATIONS: Technology usage in U.S. older adults varied significantly by sociodemographic and health status. Prevalence of technology use differed by the type of disability and activity-limiting impairments. The internet, e-mail, and text messaging might be viable mediums for health promotion and communication, particularly for younger cohorts of older adults and those with certain types of impairment and less severe disability.
Authors: Vicki A Freedman; Judith D Kasper; Jennifer C Cornman; Emily M Agree; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Vincent Mor; Brenda C Spillman; Robert Wallace; Douglas A Wolf Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Calvin K L Or; Ben-Tzion Karsh; Dolores J Severtson; Laura J Burke; Roger L Brown; Patricia Flatley Brennan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Soo Lim; Seon Mee Kang; Hayley Shin; Hak Jong Lee; Ji Won Yoon; Sung Hoon Yu; So-Youn Kim; Soo Young Yoo; Hye Seung Jung; Kyong Soo Park; Jun Oh Ryu; Hak C Jang Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Adam Steventon; Martin Bardsley; John Billings; Jennifer Dixon; Helen Doll; Shashi Hirani; Martin Cartwright; Lorna Rixon; Martin Knapp; Catherine Henderson; Anne Rogers; Ray Fitzpatrick; Jane Hendy; Stanton Newman Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-06-21
Authors: Martin Cartwright; Shashivadan P Hirani; Lorna Rixon; Michelle Beynon; Helen Doll; Peter Bower; Martin Bardsley; Adam Steventon; Martin Knapp; Catherine Henderson; Anne Rogers; Caroline Sanders; Ray Fitzpatrick; James Barlow; Stanton P Newman Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-02-26
Authors: Dori Rosenberg; Elyse A Kadokura; Erin D Bouldin; Christina E Miyawaki; Celestia S Higano; Andrea L Hartzler Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2017-02-10
Authors: Alex Federman; Erin Sarzynski; Cindy Brach; Paul Francaviglia; Jessica Jacques; Lina Jandorf; Angela Sanchez Munoz; Michael Wolf; Joseph Kannry Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Jason Fanning; Elizabeth A Awick; Thomas R Wójcicki; Neha Gothe; Sarah Roberts; Diane K Ehlers; Robert W Motl; Edward McAuley Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2015-11-23