Comprehensive Senior Technology Acceptance Model of Daily Living Assistive Technology for Older Adults With Frailty: Cross-sectional Study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are considerable gaps between the need for assistive technologies and the actual adoption of these technologies among older adults, although older adults are among the groups that most need assistive technologies. Consequently, research is needed in this area because older adults' technology acceptance and influencing factors may differ depending on their level of frailty. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare frail, prefrail, and robust groups of South Korean adults regarding their behavioral intention to use daily living assistive technologies and the affecting factors-namely, technological context factors, health contexts and abilities, and attitudinal factors-based on a comprehensive senior technology acceptance model. METHODS: A nationwide sample of 500 older South Korean adults (aged 55-92 years) was analyzed, and multivariate linear regression analyses of the robust, prefrail, and frail groups were performed. The independent and dependent variables consisted of 3 factors based on previous studies. First, technological context factors consisted of gerontechnology self-efficacy, gerontechnology anxiety, and facilitating conditions. Second, health contexts and abilities consisted of self-reported health conditions, cognitive ability, social relationships, psychological function, and physical function. Third and last, attitudinal factors consisted of behavioral intention to use assistive technologies, attitude toward use, perceived usefulness (PU), and perceived ease of use (PEOU). RESULTS: The results of the analyses showed that technological context factors such as gerontechnology self-efficacy, health contexts and abilities such as self-reported health conditions and psychological function, and attitudinal factors such as attitude toward use, PU, and PEOU had significant effects on behavioral intention to use daily living assistive technologies. In particular, gerontechnology self-efficacy had a significant relationship with behavioral intention to use these technologies in the robust (r=0.120; P=.03) and prefrail (r=0.331; P<.001) groups. Psychological function (life satisfaction) had a significant relationship with behavioral intention to use these technologies in the robust group (r=-0.040; P=.02). Self-reported health conditions had a significant relationship with behavioral intention to use these technologies in the prefrail group (r=-0.169; P=.01). Although each group had a different significant relationship with the variables, attitudinal factors such as attitude toward use affected all groups (robust group r=0.190; P=.03; prefrail group r=0.235; P=.006; and frail group r=0.526; P=.002). In addition, PU and PEOU in the attitudinal factors had a significant relationship with behavioral intention to use assistive technologies in the robust (PU r=0.160; P=.01; and PEOU r=0.350; P<.001) and prefrail (PU r=0.265; P<.001; and PEOU r=0.120; P=.04) groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the comprehensive senior technology acceptance model of daily living assistive technologies had different associations according to the frailty group. These findings provided insights into the consideration of interventions with daily living assistive technologies for older adults with varying levels of frailty.