Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24996581›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of medical informatics2014

Acceptance and use of health information technology by community-dwelling elders.

Shira H Fischer, Daniel David, Bradley H Crotty, Meghan Dierks, Charles Safran

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of medical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 142 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
142citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

142 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

82 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Shira H FischerDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 1330 Beacon St., Suite 400, Brookline, MA 02446, United States; RAND Corporation, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 920, Boston, MA 02116, United States. Electronic address: sfischer@rand.org.
Daniel DavidDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 1330 Beacon St., Suite 400, Brookline, MA 02446, United States; Jonas Foundation Scholar, School of Nursing, Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115, United States.
Bradley H CrottyDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 1330 Beacon St., Suite 400, Brookline, MA 02446, United States.
Meghan DierksDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 1330 Beacon St., Suite 400, Brookline, MA 02446, United States.
Charles SafranDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 1330 Beacon St., Suite 400, Brookline, MA 02446, United States.

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING-MEDICAL INFORMATICS 90T15LM007092 · NLM · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Nils Gehlenborg · 1992 to 2026
$32.8M
InfoSAGE Information Sharing Across Generation and EnvironmentsR01HS021495 · AHRQ · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SAFRAN, CHARLES · 2013 to 2017
$2.4M
AHRQ HHS 1 R01 HS21495-01A1AHRQ HHS R01 HS021495NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007092NLM NIH HHS T15LM007092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWith the worldwide population growing in age, information technology may help meet important needs to prepare and support patients and families for aging. We sought to explore the use and acceptance of information technology for health among the elderly by reviewing the existing literature.

methodsReview of literature using PubMed and Google Scholar, references from relevant papers, and consultation with experts.

resultsElderly people approach the Internet and health information technology differently than younger people, but have growing rates of adoption. Assistive technology, such as sensors or home monitors, may help 'aging in place', but these have not been thoroughly evaluated. Elders face many barriers in using technology for healthcare decision-making, including issues with familiarity, willingness to ask for help, trust of the technology, privacy, and design challenges.

conclusionsBarriers must be addressed for these tools to be available to this growing population. Design, education, research, and policy all play roles in addressing these barriers to acceptance and use.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesHealth Services for the AgedMedical InformaticsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedAttitude to ComputersHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCommunity-dwellingElderlyHealth information technology (HIT)Internet

Identifiers

PMID24996581
PMCPMC4144164

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.