Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications
Volume 2013, Article ID 509198, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/509198
Research Article

The Anticipated Positive Psychosocial Impact of Present Web-Based E-Health Services and Future Mobile Health Applications: An Investigation among Older Swedes

Department of Health Sciences, Luleå University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden

Received 2 July 2013; Revised 30 September 2013; Accepted 21 October 2013

Academic Editor: Guy Pare

Copyright © 2013 S. Wiklund Axelsson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. European Commission, “The 2012 ageing report, “ European Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs,” http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/pdf/ee-2012-2_en.pdf.
  2. European Commission, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/health/ehealth/policy/index_en.htm.
  3. European Commission, EHealth Action Plan 2012–2020—Innovative Healthcare For the 21st Century, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
  4. P. E. Kummervold and R. Wynn, “Health information accessed on the internet: the development in 5 european countries,” International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, vol. 2012, Article ID 297416, 3 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  5. The Swedish Parliament, “eHealth—benefits and business potential,” Tech. Rep. 2011/12:RFR5, 2011/12, Riksdagstryckeriet, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  6. Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, “National eHealth—the strategy for accessible and secure information in health and social care,” Tech. Rep. S2011.023, Government offices of Sweden, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  7. M. L. Jung and K. Loria, “Acceptance of Swedish e-health Services,” Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, vol. 3, pp. 55–63, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  8. B. M. C. Silva, J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, I. M. C. Lopes, T. M. F. Machado, and L. Zhou, “A Novel Cooperation Strategy for Mobile Health Applications,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications/Supplement, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 28–36, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  9. G. Demiris, L. B. Afrin, S. Speedie et al., “Patient-centered applications: use of information technology to promote disease management and wellness. A white paper by the AMIA knowledge in motion working Group,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 8–13, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. Z. Gabriel and A. Bowling, “Quality of life from the perspectives of older people,” Ageing and Society, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 675–691, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. R. Steele, A. Lo, C. Secombe, and Y. K. Wong, “Elderly persons' perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 78, no. 12, pp. 788–801, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. A. Walker, “A European perspective on quality of life in old age,” European Journal of Ageing, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 2–12, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. A. MelanderWikman, Y. Fältholm, and G. Gard, “Safety vs. privacy: elderly persons’experiences of a mobile safety alarm,” Health & Social Care in the Community, vol. 16, pp. 337–346, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  14. J. Jutai and H. Day, “Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS),” Technology and Disability, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 107–111, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. T. Obia, D. Ishmatovab, and N. Iwasakic, “Promoting ICT innovations for the ageing population in Japan,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 82, pp. e47–e62, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  16. M. Cartwright, “Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial,” British Medical Journal, vol. 346, no. 26, article f653, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  17. K. Renaud and J. Van Biljon, “Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: a qualitative study,” in Proceedings of the Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries: Riding the Wave of Technology, pp. 210–219, October 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. A.-S. Melenhorst, W. A. Rogers, and D. G. Bouwhuis, “Older adults' motivated choice for technological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selectivity,” Psychology and Aging, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 190–195, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. S. Wiklund Axelsson, A. Melander Wikman, A. Näslund, and L. Nyberg, “Older people's health-related ICT-use in Sweden,” Gerontechnology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 36–43, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  20. Swedish Population Register, SPAR, 2013, http://www.statenspersonadressregister.se/Om-SPAR/In-English.html.
  21. B. Bergvall-Kaareborn, D. Howcroft, A. Ståhlbröst, and A. Melander Wikman, “Participation in living lab: designing systems with users,” in Human Benefit Through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research, J. Pries-Heje, J. J. Venable, D. Bunker, N. L. Russo, and J. I. DeGross, Eds., vol. 318, pp. 317–326, Springer, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  22. B. Bergwall-Kåreborn, T. Ghaye, and A. Melander Wikman, “A model for reflective participatory design. ” The importance of participation, voice and space when designing systems with users,” 2013.
  23. M. Jarke, X. Tung Bui, and J. M. Carroll, “Scenario management: an interdisciplinary approach,” Requirements Engineering, vol. 3, no. 3-4, pp. 155–173, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. H. Day and J. Jutai, Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) Manual, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada, 2003.
  25. H. Day and J. Jutai, “Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS,” Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 159–168, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. J. Jutai, “Quality of life impact of assistive technology,” Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 2–6, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  27. H. Day, J. Jutai, and K. A. Campbell, “Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead,” Disability and Rehabilitation, vol. 24, no. 1–3, pp. 31–37, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. Brooks, R. Rabin, and F. de Charro, The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective-Evidence From the EuroQol BIOMED Research Program, Kluwer, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003.
  29. B. Dawson, R. G. Trapp, and R. G. Trapp, Basic & Clinical Biostatistics, Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
  30. Internet use in household and by individuals, 2012, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-050/EN/KS-SF-12-050-EN.PDF.
  31. O. Findahl, “Swedes and the internet 2012,” Tech. Rep. 1, internetstatistik, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  32. S. Bell and V. Menec, “You Don’t Want to Ask for the Help‘ the imperative of independence is it related to social exclusion?’,” Journal of Applied Gerontology, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. A. Bowes and G. McColgan, “Telecare for older people promoting independence, participation, and identity,” Research on Aging, vol. 35, pp. 32–49, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  34. K. Arning, A. Holzinger, and K. Miesenberger, “Different perspectives on technology acceptance: the role of technology type and age,” HCI and Usability for E-Inclusion, vol. 5889, article 20, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  35. E. Hernández-Encuentra, M. Pousada, and B. Gómez-Zúniga, “ICT and older people: beyond usability,” Educational Gerontology, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 226–245, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. E. D. Mynatt, A.-S. Melenhorst, A. D. Fisk, and W. A. Rogers, “Aware technologies for aging in place: understanding user needs and attitudes,” IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 36–41, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. G. Demiris, M. J. Rantz, M. A. Aud et al., “Older adults attitudes towards and perceptions of 'smart home technologies: a pilot study,” Informatics for Health and Social Care, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 87–94, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. J. F. Coughlin, “Older adult perceptions of smart home technologies: implications for research, policy market innovations in healthcare,” in Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMB Cité Internationale, pp. 1810–1815, Lyon, France, 2007.
  39. I. Plaza, L. Martín, S. Martin, and C. Medrano, “Mobile applications in an aging society: status and trends,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 84, no. 11, pp. 1977–1988, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. H. Buysse, G. De Moor, P. Coorevits, G. Van Maele, J. Kaufman, and J. Ruige, “Main characteristics of type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients interested in the use of a telemonitoring platform,” Journal of Nursing and Healthcare of Chronic Illness, vol. 3, pp. 456–468, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  41. K. V. Wild, N. C. Mattek, S. A. Maxwell, H. H. Dodge, H. B. Jimison, and J. A. Kaye, “Computer-related self-efficacy and anxiety in older adults with and without mild cognitive impairment,” Alzheimer's & Dementia, vol. 8, pp. 544–552, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  42. I. Pettersson, G. Ahlström, and K. Törnquist, “The value of an outdoor powered wheelchair with regard to the quality of life of persons with stroke: a follow-up study,” Assistive Technology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 143–153, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. J. Jutai, P. Rigby, S. Ryan, and S. Stickel, “Psychosocial impact of electronic aids to daily living,” Assistive Technology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 123–131, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. R. DeRosier and R. S. Farber, “Speech recognition software as an assistive device: a pilot study of user satisfaction and psychosocial impact,” Work, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 125–134, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. L. Demers, R. Weiss-Lambrou, and B. Ska, “The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress,” Technology and Disability, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 101–105, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. J. Scherer and G. Craddock, “Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process,” Technology and Disability, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 125–131, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. J. M. Brick and D. Williams, “Explaining rising nonresponse rates in cross-sectional surveys,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 645, pp. 36–59, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  48. R. M. Groves, “Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 646–675, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus