JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The use of age as a variable of interest in research creates a double-bind because of a confusion of the biological and sociological meanings. This double-bind creates conditions that risk giving rise to positive or negative ageist stereotypes. This problem permeates discourses about successful ageing and analyses of how older adults use new technologies. For this reason, to use numerical age as a selection variable may lead to biased sampling and the self-exclusion of older adults from research, particularly those who are concerned about age-stigmatization.

Objective:

This study examines "age" as a primary variable with a focus on the intersection of "successful ageing" and "assistive ICTs for older adults" within a healthcare context.

Methods:

The PubMed database was searched for studies that i) used age as a numerical selection criteria; ii) introduced A-ICT's to older adults and iii) focused on successful and independent ageing as the targeted outcome of A-ICT adoption. From 180 articles, 31 satisfied the selection criteria (recruited adults aged 65+, and performed qualitative or quantitative research on A-ICTs that were introduced to improve the lives of older adults.) Using several qualitative data analytical approaches (content analysis, thematic analysis and discourse analysis of the Introduction, Methods, and Discussions), we examined the double-binds arising from the framing of research in the context of age-related deficits.

Results:

This review shows that concerns about the costs and burden of ageing in general dominate the framing of research objectives. The recruitment strategies conducted in almost all of the reviewed studies are not inclusive of the general population. The conclusions of reviewed studies indicate that the heterogeneity of the sample population in terms of needs, appraisals and adherence to proposed interventions prohibits drawing generalizable conclusions about the applicability of any give A-ICT to improving conditions that are promoted for successful ageing. Discourse analysis revealed an interdisciplinary gap between quantitative and qualitative research strategies. The intersectional search strategy of this review allowed us to learn that longitudinal, playful, and participatory research approaches are more effective to learn from the complexity of individual agency, and to avoid the risk of making ageist inferences.

Conclusions:

This review indicates that the contribution of numerical age as an explanatory variable in knowledge generation is minimal. Adopting an eco-social framework that looks at needs and coping styles can lead to identifying more specific dimensions of individual variation and context that predict the uptake and response to A-ICTs for successful ageing.