Exploring factors influencing willingness of older adults to use assistive technologies: evidence from the cognitive function and ageing study II
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology is widely promoted as a solution to greater independence and better health for the rapidly growing UK older population. If this is to be realised, we need to understand barriers and facilitators to uptake and investigate who wants this technology and who does not express an interest in use. This analysis is based on data from a population-based cohort study, the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study (CFAS)-II, which focused on brain health in older people and included questions about access to- and interest in- internet technologies. The factors affecting willingness to use technologies that support memory and ADL were identified using binary logistic regression analysis. 541 people aged 75 years and older from Cambridgeshire, Nottingham and Newcastle responded. Older adults were more willing to use technologies directed towards improving memory (65%) than towards ADL supportive technologies (38%). Regression analysis showed that an older age (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.34–0.98), female gender (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.42–0.99), no access to technology including laptops and tablets (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.32–0.72), and self-reported physically less slowing down (but no objective health indicators) (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.36–0.88) were strongly associated with UK older adults’ lesser willingness to use memory assistive technologies while not having access to laptops and tablets (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.39–0.84) was associated with willingness to use ADL supportive technologies. Older people, females and those with less access to technologies should be considered as target groups by healthcare providers, policymakers, and technology producers to promote technology and support healthy and independent ageing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it