Innovations in elderly care: key success factors
cytuj
pobierz pliki
RIS BIB ENDNOTEWybierz format
RIS BIB ENDNOTEInnovations in elderly care: key success factors
Data publikacji: 28.12.2018
Zdrowie Publiczne i Zarządzanie, 2018, Tom 16, Numer 3, s. 177 - 186
https://doi.org/10.4467/20842627OZ.18.020.10433Autorzy
Innovations in elderly care: key success factors
The aim of the paper is to identify key determinants of effective implementation of innovations in respect to assisted living ecosystems for the elderly. Desk-study as a method was used and EBSCO (including Medline), ScienceDirect, Open Knowledge Repository, and BazEkon databases were researched. The scope of ageing and its key economic and social consequences are portrayed at the beginning. Then main categories of seniors’ needs are presented. Consequently the main ways innovations and new technologies can respond to these needs are identified accompanied by senior citizens’ particular attitude toward new technologies, especially ICT. Then Gerontechnology is presented not only as an important social innovation, but also as a leverage for more effective implementation of innovations and modern technologies in active and assisted living for seniors. The article ends with identification of three key success factors for effective implementation of innovations and new technologies by independently living seniors.
1. http://www.who.int/topics/innovation (accessed: 19.11.2018).
2. United Nations, World Population Ageing 2017, New York 2017.
3. World Bank Group, The Impact of Aging on Economic Growth, “South East Europe Regular Economic Report” 2015; 8S.
4. European Commission, Growing the European silver economy, Background paper, 2015, 23 February.
5. https://www.un.org/development/desa/ageing/news/2018/09/unga73 (accessed: 19.11.2018).
6. http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/publication/golden-aging (accessed: 19.11.2018).
7. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing#
Past_and_future_population_ageing_trends_in_the_EU7 (accessed: 19.11.2018).
8. Otto K., Shekar M., Herbst C., Mohammed R., Information and Communication Technologies for Health Systems Strengthening: Opportunities, Criteria for Success, and Innovation for Africa and Beyond, “Health, Nutrition, and Population Discussion Paper” 2015; 94943. World Bank, Washington, DC 2015.
9. Vogel E., Ludwig A., Börsch-Supan A., Aging and Pension Reform. Extending the Retirement Age and Human Capital Formation, European Central Bank “Working Papers” 2012; 1476.
10. Heleniak T.E., Canagarajah S., Demography, aging, and mobility in the ECA region: A critical overview of trends and future challenges (Vol. 2), Washington, DC 2013.
11. Bussolo M., Koettl J., Sinnott E., Golden Aging: Prospects for Healthy, Active, and Prosperous Aging in Europe and Central Asia, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC 2015.
12. Laurie J., Aging and Long Term Care Systems: A Review of Finance and Governance Arrangements in Europe, The World Bank North America and Asia-Pacific “Social Protection & Labor Discussion Paper” 2017; 1705.
13. Petersen A., Capitalising on ageing anxieties: Promissory discourse and the creation of an ‘anti-ageing treatment’ market, “Journal of Sociology” 2018; 54 (2): 191–202.
14. Eatock D., The silver economy. Opportunities from ageing, “European Parliamentary Research Service” 2015; 565.872.
15. Mitseva A., Peterson C.B., Karamberi C., Oikonomou L.Ch., Ballis A.V., Giannakakos Ch., Dafoulas G.E., Gerontechnology: Providing a Helping HandWhen Caring for Cognitively Impaired Older Adults – Intermediate Results from a Controlled Study on the Satisfaction and Acceptance of Informal Caregivers, “Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research” 2012. ID 401705.
16. Nef T., Bieri R., Müri R.M., Mosimann U.P., Non-Illness-Related Factors Contributing to Traffic Safety in Older Drivers: A Literature Review, “Experimental Aging Research” 2015; 41 (3): 325–360.
17. World Bank Group, Poland: Toward a Strategic, Effective, and Accountable State. Systematic Country Diagnostic, The World Bank, Washington, DC 2017.
18. Joyce K., Loe M., Theorising technogenarians: A sociological approach to ageing, technology and health, in: Joyce K., Loe M. (eds), Technogenarians. Studying Health and Illness Through an Ageing, Science, and Technology Lens, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester010:3.
19. Zhou L., Lu J., Chen G., Dong L., Yao Y., Is There a Paradox of Aging: When the Negative Aging Stereotype Meets the Positivity Effect in Older Adults, “Experimental Aging Research” 2017; 43: 80–93.
20. Bouma H., Creating adaptive technological environments, “Gerontechnology” 2001; 1 (1): 1–3.
21. Marcelino I., Laza R., Domingues P., Gómez-Meire S., Fdez-Riverola F., Pereira A., Active and Assisted Living Ecosystem for the Elderly, “Sensors” 2018; 18 (4): 1–18.
22. Voelcker I., Kalache A., Empowerment of the ageing population: A contribution to active ageing, in: Michel J.-P., Beattie B.L., Martin F.C., Walston J.D. (eds), Oxford Textbook of Geriatric Medicine (3 ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017.
23. Petermans J., Piau A., Gerontechnology: Don’t miss the train, but which is the right carriage?, “European Geriatric Medicine” 2017; 8: 281–283.
24. Shekar M., Otto K., ICTs for Health in Africa, World Bank, Washington, DC 2014.
25. Collino S., Comte B., Pujos Guillot E., Franceschi C., Nuñez Galindo A., Dayon L., Kussmann M., Healthy ageing phenotypes and trajectories, in: Michel J.-P., Beattie B.L., Martin F.C., Walston J.D. (eds), Oxford Textbook of Geriatric Medicine (3 ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017.
26. Podrebarac J., Edin J., Suuronen E.J., Alarcon E.I., Griffith M., Nanosciences and the medicine of ageing, in: Michel J.-P., Beattie B.L., Martin F.C., Walston J.D. (eds), Oxford Textbook of Geriatric Medicine (3 ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 2017.
27. Schulz R., Wahl H.-W., Matthews J.T., De Vito Dabbs A., Beach S.R., Czaja S.J., Advancing the Aging and Technology Agenda in Gerontology, “The Gerontologist” 2015; 55 (5): 724–734.
28. Bouma H., Fozard J.L., Gerontechnology as a field of endeavour, “Gerontechnology” 2009: 8 (2): 68–75.
29. Lagacé M., Charmarkeh H., Laplante J., Tanguay A., How Ageism Contributes to the Second-Level Digital Divide: The Case of Canadian Seniors, “Journal of Technologies and Human Usability” 2015; 11 (4): 1–13.
30. Tinker A., Kellaher L., Ginn J., Ribe E., Assisted Living Innovation Platform: Scoping report for the Long Term Care Revolution SBRI Challenge. The status of housing provision for older adults in the UK and other EU countries, The Technology Strategy Board, London 2014.
31. Liu L., Stroulia E., Nikolaidis I., Miguel-Cruz A., Rios Rincon A., Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review, “International Journal of Medical Informatics” 2016; 91: 44–59.
32. Wu Y.H., Damnée S., Kerhervé H., Ware C., Rigaud A.S., Bridging the digital divide in older adults: A study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies, “Clinical Interventions in Aging” 2015; 10: 193–200.
33. Chen K., Chan A.H., Use or non-use of gerontechnology – a qualitative study, “International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” 2013; 10 (10): 4645–4666.
34. Fox C., Technogenarians: The pioneers of pervasive computing aren’t getting any younger, “Wired” 2001; 11.01.01; https://www.wired.com/2001/11/aging (accessed: 24.11.2018).
35. Peek S.T.M., Luijkx K.G., Rijnaard M.D., Nieboer M.E., van der Voort C.S., Aarts S., van Hoof J., Vrijhoef H.J.M., Wouters E.J.M., Older Adults’ Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place, “Gerontology” 2016; 62 (2): 226–237.
36. Golant S.M., A theoretical model to explain the smart technology adoption behaviors of elder consumers, “Journal of Aging Studies” 2017; 42: 56–73.
37. Wu Y.H., Damnée S., Kerhervé H., Ware C., Rigaud A.S., Bridging the digital divide in older adults: A study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies, “Clinical Interventions in Aging” 2015; 10: 193–200.
38. Lenstra N., Agency and ageism in the community-based technology support services used by older adults, “First Monday” 2017; 22 (8): 1.
39. Tomšič M., Domajnko B., Zajc M., The use of assistive technologies after stroke is debunking the myths about the elderly, “Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation” 2018; 25 (1): 28–36.
40. Pol M., van Nes F., van Hartingsveldt M., Buurman B., de Rooij S., Kröse B., Older People’s Perspectives Regarding the Use of Sensor Monitoring in Their Home, “The Gerontologist” 2016; 56 (3): 485–493.
41. Gerontechnologies – Current achievements and future trends, “Expert Systems” 2017; 34: e12203.
42. Argoud D., Are gerontechnologies a social innovation?, “Retraite et Societe” 2017; 75 (3): 31–45.
43. Bouma H., Gerontechnology: Emerging technologies and their impact on aging in society. “Studies in Health Technology and Informatics” 1998; 48: 93–104.
44. Wieczorek A., Gerontechnologia w rozwiązywaniu problemów osób starszych, “Systemy Wspomagania w Inżynierii Produkcji. Inżynieria Systemów Technicznych” P.A. Nova S.A. 2016; 2 (14): 358–370.
45. Boruta M., Gerontechnologia jako narzędzie w procesie zaspokajania potrzeb mieszkaniowych seniorów, “Progress in Economic Sciences” 2017; 4: 25–36.
46. Rzeczyński B., Gerontechnologia w przestrzeni komunalnej, “Przegląd Komunalny” 2009; 3: 86–87.
47. Portet F., Vacher M., Golanski C., Roux C., Meillon B., Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: Acceptability and objection aspects, “Personal and Ubiquitous Computing” 2013; 17 (1): 127–144.
48. Merkel S., Kucharski A., Participatory Design in Gerontechnology: A Systematic Literature Review, “The Gerontologist”, gny034, https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny034 (accessed: 26.11.2018).
49. Hallewell Haslwanter J.D., Fitzpatrick G., Why do few assistive technology systems make it to market? The case of the HandyHelper project, “Universal Access in the Information Society” 2017; 16 (3): 755–773.
50. Cohen K., Kampel T., Verloo H., Acceptability of an intelligent wireless sensor system for the rapid detection of health issues: Findings among home-dwelling older adults and their informal caregivers, “Patient Preference & Adherence” 2016; 10: 1687–1695.
51. Leroi I., Watanabe K., Hird N., Sugihara T., “Psychogeritechnology” in Japan: Examples from a super-aged society, “International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry” 2018; 33 (12): 1533–1540.
52. Dasenbrock L., Heinks A., Schwenk M., Bauer J.M., Technology-based measurements for screening, monitoring and preventing frailty, “Zeitschrift Für Gerontologie Und Geriatrie” 2016; 49 (7): 581–595.
53. Masterson Creber R.M., Hickey K.T.,, Maurer M.S., Gerontechnologies for Older Patients with Heart Failure : What is the Role of Smartphones, Tablets, and Remote Monitoring Devices in Improving Symptom Monitoring and Self-Care Management?, “Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports” 2016; 10 (10): 30.
54. Zafrani O., Nimrod G., Towards a Holistic Approach to Studying Human-Robot Interaction in Later Life, “The Gerontologist” 2018; gny077, https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny077 (accessed: 26.11.2018).
55. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=humanoid+robot+Kimset+MIT&qpvt=humanoid+robot+Kimset+MIT&view=
detail&mid=28E3B12ADD9EF6404CBB28E3B12ADD9EF6404CBB&rvsmid=
5B6B37F5735777B14C565B6B37F5735777B14C56&FORM=VDQVAP (accessed: 27.11.2018).
56. Neven L., ‘But obviously not for me’: Robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users, in: Joyce K., Loe M. (eds), Technogenarians. Studying Health and Illness Through an Ageing, Science, and Technology Lens, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester? 2010:159.
Informacje: Zdrowie Publiczne i Zarządzanie, 2018, Tom 16, Numer 3, s. 177 - 186
Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy
Tytuły:
Innovations in elderly care: key success factors
Innovations in elderly care: key success factors
Department of Public Administration, Cracow University of Economics
Publikacja: 28.12.2018
Status artykułu: Otwarte
Licencja: CC BY-NC-ND
Udział procentowy autorów:
Korekty artykułu:
-Języki publikacji:
AngielskiLiczba wyświetleń: 2115
Liczba pobrań: 1098