Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24456682›Full record

ReviewDisability and health journal2014

The potential for technology to enhance independence for those aging with a disability.

Emily M Agree

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Disability and health journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Racial-Ethnic Differences in Care Networks of Older Adults: Empirical Exploration of Possible Explanations.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Emily M AgreeDepartment of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. Electronic address: Emily.Agree@jhu.edu.

Funding

Statistical Data EnclaveP30AG012846 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Esther M. Friedman · 1999 to 2026
$23.2M
Program Development CoreP30AG034464 · NIA · SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY · PI WILMOTH, JANET · 2009 to 2013
$1.4M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG012846NIA NIH HHS P30 AG034464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technologies of all kinds can sustain and accelerate improvements in health and quality of life for an aging population, and enhance the independence of persons with disabilities. Assistive technologies are widely used to promote independent functioning, but the aging of users and their devices produces unique challenges to individuals, their families, and the health care system. The emergence of new "smart" technologies that integrate information technology with assistive technologies has opened a portal to the development of increasingly powerful, individualized tools to assist individuals with disabilities to meet their needs. Yet, issues of access and usability remain to be solved for their usefulness to be fully realized. New cohorts aging with disabilities will have more resources and more experience with integrated technologies than current elders. Attention to technological solutions that help them adapt to the challenges of later life is needed to improve quality of life for those living long lives with disabilities.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgingHealth Services Needs and DemandPersons with DisabilitiesQuality of LifeSelf-Help DevicesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansAgingAssistive technologyInternet

Identifiers

PMID24456682
PMCPMC4154228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.