Mira I Leese1, Katherine E Dorociak2, Madeline Noland2, Joseph E Gaugler3, Nora Mattek4,5, Adriana Hughes3,5,6. 1. Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Department of Psychology, North Chicago, IL, USA. 2. VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 4. Oregon Health & Science University, Department of Neurology, Portland, OR, USA. 5. Oregon Center for Aging & Technology, Portland, OR, USA. 6. Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As researchers incorporate in-home technologies to identify and track changes in older adults' cognitive and daily functioning that could lead to early interventions, the attitudes of older adults across the continuum from normal cognitive aging to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) must be assessed to ensure technology adoption and adherence in each unique group. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory pilot study incorporated both quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively intact older adults' attitudes (i.e., usability, acceptability, digital readiness, barriers) and adherence to in-home technologies after undergoing 7 months of in-home activity monitoring. METHOD: Participants were 30 older adult veterans who were classified as cognitively intact (n = 15) or having mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 15) and participated in a longitudinal aging and technology study that monitored their physical activity and computer use. RESULTS: While MCI older adults endorsed reduced digital readiness (p =.041) and required more in-home technology maintenance visits (p =.041) from staff as compared to cognitively intact older adults, there was no difference in adherence to the study technology (p >.05). Usability and acceptability attitudes in the entire sample predicted adherence to the physical activity monitoring technology employed in the study (p =.008). CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the potential gap between technology developers and older adult end users, and technologies designed specifically for older adults with MCI should be developed with direct input from older adults with MCI to promote usability and long-term adoption in this clinical population. Larger studies are needed to replicate and increase the generalizability of the current findings.
BACKGROUND: As researchers incorporate in-home technologies to identify and track changes in older adults' cognitive and daily functioning that could lead to early interventions, the attitudes of older adults across the continuum from normal cognitive aging to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) must be assessed to ensure technology adoption and adherence in each unique group. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory pilot study incorporated both quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and cognitively intact older adults' attitudes (i.e., usability, acceptability, digital readiness, barriers) and adherence to in-home technologies after undergoing 7 months of in-home activity monitoring. METHOD: Participants were 30 older adult veterans who were classified as cognitively intact (n = 15) or having mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 15) and participated in a longitudinal aging and technology study that monitored their physical activity and computer use. RESULTS: While MCI older adults endorsed reduced digital readiness (p =.041) and required more in-home technology maintenance visits (p =.041) from staff as compared to cognitively intact older adults, there was no difference in adherence to the study technology (p >.05). Usability and acceptability attitudes in the entire sample predicted adherence to the physical activity monitoring technology employed in the study (p =.008). CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the potential gap between technology developers and older adult end users, and technologies designed specifically for older adults with MCI should be developed with direct input from older adults with MCI to promote usability and long-term adoption in this clinical population. Larger studies are needed to replicate and increase the generalizability of the current findings.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Matthew Calamia; Alyssa De Vito; John P K Bernstein; Daniel S Weitzner; Owen T Carmichael; Jeffrey N Keller Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Lauren L Mitchell; Colleen M Peterson; Shaina R Rud; Eric Jutkowitz; Andrielle Sarkinen; Sierra Trost; Carolyn M Porta; Jessica M Finlay; Joseph E Gaugler Journal: J Appl Gerontol Date: 2018-03-04
Authors: Tana M Luger; Timothy P Hogan; Lorilei M Richardson; Lisa Cioffari-Bailiff; Kimberly Harvey; Thomas K Houston Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; Lilah Besser; Hiroko H Dodge; Merilee Teylan; Steven Ferris; Felicia C Goldstein; Bruno Giordani; Joel Kramer; David Loewenstein; Dan Marson; Dan Mungas; David Salmon; Kathleen Welsh-Bohmer; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Steven D Shirk; Alireza Atri; Walter A Kukull; Creighton Phelps; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2018 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703