Enterprise AI Analysis
Health information technology acceptance by older people: a systematic review
This systematic review investigates older adults' acceptance of Health Information Technologies (HIT) and influencing factors. It reveals a higher intention to accept assistive technologies over mobile health/eHealth. Acceptance is shaped by personal, social, and technology design factors. Key findings include a lack of geographical diversity in studies, particularly from Asia and Africa, and a significant portion of studies not employing theoretical frameworks. The review emphasizes the need for rigorous, geographically diverse, and theoretically grounded research, alongside user-centered development of HIT products.
Executive Impact
Key metrics and findings at a glance, highlighting the scope and critical insights of the research.
0
Articles Retrieved
0
Unique Articles
0
Studies Included
0
No Theoretical Framework
Deep Analysis & Enterprise Applications
Select a topic to dive deeper, then explore the specific findings from the research, rebuilt as interactive, enterprise-focused modules.
Key Factors Influencing HIT Acceptance by Older Adults
Understanding the multifaceted factors that drive or hinder the adoption of Health Information Technologies among older populations.
Intergenerational support: Positive influence on HIT acceptance through knowledge transfer and emotional support (Wei et al. [95]). Social influence: Perceptions of others' expectations positively correlate with intention to accept HIT (Wang et al. [93, 94], Roh et al. [83]). Facilitating conditions: Provision of necessary technology, technical infrastructure, Internet access, and user services support are crucial. Training and capacity-building activities are also vital, especially in areas with low computer literacy (Zin et al. [65]).
Technology anxiety and fear: Higher anxiety and fear of making mistakes reduce intention to accept HIT (Park et al. [25], Kalınkara et al. [60], Steele et al. [29], Liu et al. [72]). Routine (habit)/resistance to change: Low willingness to change daily habits can hinder acceptance (Kirchbuchner et al. [37], Liu et al. [72]). Perceived usefulness: A higher perceived usefulness of HIT generally leads to higher acceptance (Hoque and Sorwar [43], Cimperman et al. [49], Zin et al. [65], Wang et al. [93, 94]). Inconsistent evidence: The impact of age, gender, health status, education, and internal abilities on HIT acceptance remains inconsistent and unclear (Offermann-van Heek [59], Schomakers et al. [54], De Veer et al. [48], Etemad-Sajadi and Gomes Dos Santos [31], Bertera et al. [53], Zacharopoulou et al. [98], Henkemans et al. [56], Park et al. [25], Liu et al. [72], Kalınkara et al. [60]).
Ease of use: Products that are easy to use are more appealing and increase acceptance (Piasek and Wieczorowska-Tobis [26], Rochmawati et al. [63], Wang et al. [95], Kalınkara et al. [60]). Usefulness/Performance Expectancy: Directly tied to daily life activities, quality of life, and productivity (Hoque and Sorwar [43], Cimperman et al. [49], Zin et al. [65], Wang et al. [93, 94]). Comfort: The device should be comfortable to use (Feldwieser et al. [33], Rochmawati et al. [63]). Safety: Older people highly appreciate the safety provided by sensor-based technologies (Wilkowska et al. [96]), though concerns about data safety can impact acceptance (Kirchbuchner et al. [37]). Privacy/Security: Concerns about personal privacy and data security can hinder acceptance, especially when self-care functions are automated (Wang et al. [49, 93, 94], Alsulami and Atkins [69]). Cost: A significant barrier for purchasing and using gerontechnological products (Kalınkara et al. [60], Steele et al. [29], Alsulami and Atkins [69]). Lack of human interaction: Fear of losing human contact can negatively impact HIT acceptance (Frennert et al. [38], Schomakers et al. [54]). User-centered design: Manufacturers must consult older people in the design process to ensure products meet their needs and capabilities (Kalınkara et al. [60], Rochmawati et al. [63]).
Systematic Review - Study Selection Process
Scopus: 1782
→
Web of Science: 2667
→
PubMed: 228
→
CINAHL: 264
→
Results: 4941
→
Merge the duplicates: 1627
→
Unique titles: 3314
→
Title, abstract, keywords exclusions: 3191
→
Remaining articles: 123
→
Snowballing method (add): 13
→
Full content review exclusion: 85
→
Articles included in the review: 51
45.09%
of studies did not employ a theoretical framework, impacting methodological rigor and validity, and hindering comparability across studies. This highlights a critical gap in grounding research in established knowledge.
| Types of HIT | Acceptance Rating | Number of Studies | Key References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assistive technologies/smart homes | High | 19 |
|
| Mobile health/eHealth | High | 9 |
|
| Robots | High | 7 |
|
| Reminders | Few studies | 2 |
|
| Telemonitoring | Few studies | 5 |
|
| Telemedicine | Few studies | 5 |
|
| Others HIT (e.g. calendar, digital camera) | Few studies | 2 |
|
The Global Perspective: Addressing Geographical Gaps in Research
A significant limitation in understanding HIT acceptance among older adults is the pronounced lack of geographical diversity in existing studies. The majority of research originates from developed countries, particularly in Europe (Germany 19%, Netherlands 13%) and North America. This concentration means that factors influencing acceptance in other vital regions, such as Asia and Africa, are severely underrepresented. Cultural factors, varying levels of digital literacy, diverse livelihood conditions, and socio-economic statuses in these regions could profoundly impact HIT acceptance but remain largely unexplored. This gap hinders a global understanding and necessitates more case studies from developing countries to provide a comprehensive and nuanced picture. Without this, HIT solutions risk being developed without considering the unique needs and contexts of a vast portion of the global older population.
Calculate Your Potential ROI
Estimate the significant return on investment when implementing advanced AI solutions for your enterprise. Adjust the parameters to see tailored results.
Annual Cost Savings
$0
Total Hours Reclaimed Annually
0
Your AI Implementation Timeline
A phased approach to integrate AI seamlessly into your operations, from strategic planning to measurable impact.
Phase 1: Discovery & Strategy (Weeks 1-4)
Comprehensive needs assessment, stakeholder interviews, data infrastructure audit, and AI strategy alignment with business objectives.
Phase 2: Pilot & Development (Months 2-5)
Proof-of-concept development, iterative prototyping, initial model training, and user acceptance testing with a select group.
Phase 3: Integration & Scaling (Months 6-12)
Full-scale deployment, integration with existing systems, advanced model training, performance monitoring, and comprehensive employee training.
Phase 4: Optimization & Future-Proofing (Ongoing)
Continuous learning and model refinement, impact measurement, advanced analytics, and exploring new AI opportunities for sustained growth.
Ready to Transform Your Enterprise?
Book a personalized consultation with our AI strategists to explore how these insights can be tailored to your organization's unique challenges and opportunities.
Ready to Get Started?
Book Your Free Consultation.
Let's Discuss Your AI Strategy!
Lets Discuss Your Needs
Select a Date
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat