This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Aging in Place (229) Reviews on Innovation in Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies (40) Digital Health Reviews (1183) Internet Access and Digital Technology Use in an Elderly Population (179) Usability and Technology Use Studies with Elder Subjects (143) Assisted Living for the Elderly and Nursing Home Care (147)

Published on in Vol 7 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/50286, first published .
Characteristics and Range of Reviews About Technologies for Aging in Place: Scoping Review of Reviews

Characteristics and Range of Reviews About Technologies for Aging in Place: Scoping Review of Reviews

Characteristics and Range of Reviews About Technologies for Aging in Place: Scoping Review of Reviews

Authors of this article:

Jenny M Bergschöld1 Author Orcid Image ;   Mari Gunnes1 Author Orcid Image ;   Arne H Eide2 Author Orcid Image ;   Eva Lassemo1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (2) Metrics

    Review

    1Department of Health, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway

    2Department of Health, SINTEF Digital, Oslo, Norway

    Corresponding Author:

    Jenny M Bergschöld, PhD

    Department of Health

    SINTEF Digital

    Professor Brochs gate 2

    Trondheim

    Norway

    Phone: 47 46314138

    Email: jenny.bergschold@gmail.com


    Background: It is a contemporary and global challenge that the increasing number of older people requiring care will surpass the available caregivers. Solutions are needed to help older people maintain their health, prevent disability, and delay or avoid dependency on others. Technology can enable older people to age in place while maintaining their dignity and quality of life. Literature reviews on this topic have become important tools for researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and decision makers who need to navigate and access the extensive available evidence. Due to the large number and diversity of existing reviews, there is a need for a review of reviews that provides an overview of the range and characteristics of the evidence on technology for aging in place.

    Objective: This study aimed to explore the characteristics and the range of evidence on technologies for aging in place by conducting a scoping review of reviews and presenting an evidence map that researchers, policy makers, and practitioners may use to identify gaps and reviews of interest.

    Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Literature searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus using a search string that consisted of the terms “older people” and “technology for ageing in place,” with alternate terms using Boolean operators and truncation, adapted to the rules for each database.

    Results: A total of 5447 studies were screened, with 344 studies included after full-text screening. The number of reviews on this topic has increased dramatically over time, and the literature is scattered across a variety of journals. Vocabularies and approaches used to describe technology, populations, and problems are highly heterogeneous. We have identified 3 principal ways that reviews have dealt with populations, 5 strategies that the reviews draw on to conceptualize technology, and 4 principal types of problems that they have dealt with. These may be understood as methods that can inform future reviews on this topic. The relationships among populations, technologies, and problems studied in the reviews are presented in an evidence map that includes pertinent gaps.

    Conclusions: Redundancies and unexploited synergies between bodies of evidence on technology for aging in place are highly likely. These results can be used to decrease this risk if they are used to inform the design of future reviews on this topic. There is a need for an examination of the current state of the art in knowledge on technology for aging in place in low- and middle-income countries, especially in Africa.

    JMIR Aging 2024;7:e50286

    doi:10.2196/50286

    Keywords

    aging in place; technology; gerontechnology; assistive technology; gerontology; geriatric; geriatrics; older adult; older adults; aging; aging; scoping; review methods; review methodology; older people; evidence map; evidence mapping 


    Background

    The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the global population aged 60 years and older will increase from 12% to 22% between 2015 and 2050, with the most dramatic increase in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1]. This will change the age composition in populations globally. Demographic aging refers to shifts in the age composition of populations where the proportion of the population that consists of older people grows significantly. The fact that people are now living longer than ever and that they are expected to continue doing so is the result of positive developments in public health and survival [2]. Yet, demographic aging is also one of the key challenges of our time [3].

    This concern is caused by how demographic aging will impact nation states. As people grow older, they tend to become increasingly reliant on both formal and informal care. For instance, older people are more likely to have functional limitations, need assistance with everyday tasks, and need medical care [4-6]. Moreover, older individuals have lower incomes, which compound the challenges of their increasing need for care [7]. As a result, nation states have a variety of systems in place to care for older people, including systems of shouldering the cost of that care.

    In countries where welfare and care systems are heavily subsidized, demographic aging is predicted to lead to heavy financial strain and a decreased quality of life for older people, unless solutions that cater to the need to maintain good health and affordable health care into a longer set of retirement years are developed [8]. Still, the adverse consequences of demographic aging will be even greater in LMICs. In LMICs, welfare systems often function poorly or are nonexistent, meaning that the burden of caring for older people falls on families or on the older individuals to care for themselves. This has caused concerns that LMICs will “grow old before growing rich” [7].

    To neutralize the overwhelming demand for health care, solutions are needed to enable older people maintain their health for longer and postpone or avoid disability and dependency [1,9,10]. Against this background, interest in technology that enables older people to age in place while maintaining their dignity and quality of life has grown rapidly over the past 2 decades [11].

    Aging in place is a concept that refers to the shared responsibility of individuals and public authorities to enable older people to continue to live safely, relatively independently, and comfortably in the community either in their current home or in appropriate housing, regardless of age, income, or level of competence [1,12-14]. The idea is that policies and public services should address the challenges posed by demographic aging by finding alternatives to traditional forms of older adult care and creating solutions that are less resource-intensive. In welfare states where health and care services are heavily subsidized, this shift toward less resource-intensive solutions generally refers to options that maintain a high quality of life for older people while simultaneously preventing or delaying the need to relocate to a nursing home or becoming dependent on care [15], as well as to solutions that minimize the use of resources in nursing homes and other forms of formal care, without compromising their quality. Meanwhile, in LMICs, the main challenge is that welfare systems are weak and even nonexistent. Assistive technology and related services are marginal and not available for the majority, particularly for the poor rural populations. Ensuring assistive technology for all, including the growing number of older adults, requires resources and build-up of competence through a sustainable systems approach [16]. In this context, innovations are needed in service delivery, and community-based models as well as adaptation of existing assistive technology and development of new and contextually relevant assistive technology are needed to ensure that older people live well and as autonomously as possible [17].

    Technologies that enable aging in place encompass a wide variety of technologies designed to monitor or support the health and activities of older people or strengthen their contact with others [11,15]. In some cases, older people are the intended users, but technology can also be used to establish links between older adults and their circles of care. Technologies for aging in place include both high- and low-tech solutions, including but not limited to mobility devices, information and communication technologies, assistive technologies, sensor technology, telemedicine, health monitoring, games, wearables and medication reminders, and the internet of things [15,18-27].

    Rationale

    Alongside the interest in technology that can enable older people to age in place, the number of publications on this topic has increased dramatically. In this context, literature reviews can be important tools for researchers as well as practitioners, policy makers, and decision makers who need to navigate current debates and access syntheses of the available evidence. Yet, to date, there is no review of the available published reviews that provide an overview of the range and characteristics of the evidence on technology for aging in place.

    While reviews of reviews on technologies for aging in place do exist, they typically limit the scope to health conditions, diseases, technologies, or caring practices, for instance, by focusing on the self-efficacy of older people using technology to self-manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, heart failure, or dementia at home [28]; on the effects of digital technologies on older people’s access to health and social care [29]; on the promotion of physical activity in older people using mobile health (mHealth) and eHealth technologies [30]; or on how mHealth technology may support aging in place [31] and procedures of user-centered usability assessment for digital solutions [32].

    Objective

    The objective of this review of reviews is to explore the characteristics and the range of evidence on technologies for aging in place by conducting a scoping review of reviews in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) [33]. The PRISMA-ScR checklist is available in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    By exploring the included reviews, we are particularly interested in what year and in which journals they are published, which review methods that characterize reviews in this field, and whether there are any reviews that are explicitly concerned with LMICs. By LMICs, we mean the countries identified by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development as having low-income or middle income economies, which may be updated from time to time by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [34]. In exploring the range of evidence presented in reviews on technologies for aging in place, we are particularly interested in which types of populations, technologies, and problems they have been concerned with.


    Eligibility Criteria

    We included literature reviews in English about technology for older people or older adult care, including informal care, that we were able to access. To ensure the quality of our sources, we limited our scope to peer-reviewed literature reviews that have been published in academic journals. For the same reason, we only included reviews where the methods were clearly described. We did not apply any limits to the year of publication.

    Information Sources

    Our method of selecting databases included making a list of the most relevant journals in the field that the authors were aware of (Multimedia Appendix 2). The complete list was sent to a panel of experts consisting of members from the WHO and the International Society of Gerontechnology, who were asked to add any potentially relevant journals missing from the list. After the list was considered complete, the authors identified the databases where these journals were indexed. The final selection of databases was Web of Science (Table 1), PubMed (Table 2), and Scopus (Table 3). The searches in Web of Science and Scopus were conducted on September 13, 2022, and the search in PubMed was conducted on September 14, 2022.

    Table 1. Web of Science—core collection (n=1741).

    		SearchResults
    1(((((((((((TS=(“old* per*”)) OR TS=(“old* peo*”) OR TS=(“old* age*”)) OR TS=(“old* adu*”) OR TS=(“old* use*”)) OR TS=(geriatric)) OR TS=(“aged per*”)) OR TS=(“aged peo*”) OR TS=(“aged use*”) OR TS=(ag$ing)) OR TS=(elder*)) OR TS=(senior)) OR TS=(retire*)) OR TS=(pension*)) OR TS=(“later life”))4,027,248
    2(TS=(ai) OR TS=(“ag$ in place”) OR TS=(gerontechnology) OR TS=(“assisted living”) OR TS=(“assist* tech”) OR TS=(assist* device*) OR TS=(“tele*”) OR TS=(“welfare tech*”) OR TS=(“digital* health”) OR TS=(“digital* care”) OR TS=(“smart hom*”) OR TS=(“smart hea*”) OR TS=(“mobile health”) OR TS=(mhealth) OR TS=(ehealth) OR TS=(robot*))

    		1,067,363
    3#6 AND #5 and Review Article (Document Types) and English (Languages)1741
    Table 2. PubMed (n=2402).

    		SearchResults
    1(“old per*”[Title/Abstract] OR “old peo*”[Title/Abstract] OR “old adu*”[Title/Abstract] OR “old use*”[Title/Abstract] OR “geriatric”[Title/Abstract] OR “aged pe*”[Title/Abstract] OR “aging”[Title/Abstract] OR “ageing”[Title/Abstract] OR “elder*”[Title/Abstract] OR “senior”[Title/Abstract] OR “retire*”[Title/Abstract] OR “pension*”[Title/Abstract] OR “later life”[Title/Abstract]) AND (english[Filter])584,813
    2(“ai”[Title/Abstract] OR “aging in place”[Title/Abstract] OR “ageing in place”[Title/Abstract] OR “gerontechnology”[Title/Abstract] OR “assisted living”[Title/Abstract] OR “assistive living”[Title/Abstract] OR “assist* tech*”[Title/Abstract] OR “assist* device*”[Title/Abstract] OR “tele*”[Title/Abstract] OR “welfare tech*”[Title/Abstract] OR “digital health”[Title/Abstract] OR “digital care”[Title/Abstract] OR “smart hom*”[Title/Abstract] OR “smart hea*”[Title/Abstract] OR “mobile health”[Title/Abstract] OR “mhealth”[Title/Abstract] OR “ehealth”[Title/Abstract] OR “robot*”[Title/Abstract]) AND (english[Filter])319,264
    3(“independent living”[MeSH Terms] OR “self help devices”[MeSH Terms] OR “artificial intelligence”[MeSH Terms] OR “telemedicine”[MeSH Terms]) AND ((review[Filter]) AND (english[Filter]))16,843
    4(“aged”[MeSH Terms] OR “aging”[MeSH Terms]) AND ((review[Filter]) AND (english[Filter]))11,092
    5#1 AND (#2 OR #3 OR #4)2402
    Table 3. SCOPUS (n=3131).
    #SearchResults
    1TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( “old* per*” ) OR ( “old* peo*” ) OR ( “old* age*” ) OR ( “old* adu*” ) OR ( “old* use*” ) OR ( geriatric ) OR ( “aged per*” ) OR ( “aged peo*” ) OR ( “aged use*” ) OR ( ag*ing ) OR ( elder* ) OR ( senior ) OR ( retire* ) OR ( pension* ) OR ( “later life” ) )2,282,529
    2TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( ai OR “ag* in place” OR gerontechnology OR “assisted living” OR ( “assist* tech” ) OR ( “assist* device*” ) OR tele* OR ( “welfare tech*” ) OR ( “digital* health” ) OR ( “digital* care” ) OR ( “smart hom*” ) OR ( “smart hea*” ) OR ( “mobile health” ) OR mhealth OR ehealth OR robot* ) )2,047,409
    3(LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re” ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , “English” ) )3131

    Search

    A search consisting of the terms “older people” and “technology for ageing in place” with alternate terms was conducted using Boolean operators and truncation. The search was adapted to the rules for each database.

    Selection of Sources of Evidence

    The search resulted in a total of 7274 identified studies, that is, 3131 from Scopus, 2402 from PubMed, and 1741 from Web of Science. We used Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation) to organize the review process. After 1827 duplicates were identified and removed, 5447 studies were screened using the eligibility criteria (see Textbox 1). The original list of eligibility criteria contained items 1-7. However, after we identified a retracted paper, we decided to add exclusion criterion 8 “retracted paper.” The title and abstract screening resulted in the exclusion of 4973 studies. The full-text screening resulted in the further exclusion of 130 studies, and the remaining 344 studies were included in the data charting process. Figure 1 illustrates this process.

    Textbox 1. Eligibility criteria.

    Inclusion criteria

    • Literature reviews
    • Journal paper
    • Peer-reviewed research
    • Able to source full text
    • Methodologically sound
    • About technology for aging in place
    • English

    Exclusion criteria, with a short label for Covidence

    • Not a literature review—Papers that do not review the literature
    • Not a journal paper—Anything that is not a paper meaning: book chapters, conference proceedings, protocols, reports, preprints, etc
    • Not research—editorials, opinion pieces, press, etc
    • Unable to source—currently unable to access full text currently
    • Method not described—Reviews that do not clearly describe their methods
    • Thematically irrelevant—Not about technology for aging in place
    • Not in English
    • Retracted paper
    ‎
    Figure 1. Screening process flowchart.

    Data Charting Process and Data Items

    The data were extracted using the data extraction template feature in Covidence. The extraction of data was organized in line with our objectives and research questions. Tables 4 and 5 provide an overview of the relationship between the research questions and the extracted data.

    Table 4. Research questions and charted data that relate to the characteristics of reviews on technologies for aging in place.
    Research questionExtracted data
    During what years were the reviews published?Year of publication
    In which journals have the reviews been published?The name of the journal where they are published
    Which review methods characterize the reviews?The named review methods they refer to
    Is there an explicit concern with LMICs?aIf they refer explicitly to LMICs (yes or no)

    aLMIC: low- and middle-income countries.

    Table 5. Research questions and charted data that relate to the range of evidence in reviews on technologies for aging in place.
    Research questionExtracted data
    Which populations are they concerned with?The population specified in the review
    Which types of technology are they concerned with?The technology specified in the review
    What type of problems are they concerned with?The issues of interest specified in the review
    What is the relationship between the populations, problems, and technologies the reviews have dealt withThe type of technology and the issues of interest specified in the review

    All authors participated in the choice of databases and establishing the search terms and eligibility criteria. EL constructed the search string and conducted the final search. All authors participated in the screening process. The full-text papers were extracted by the authors JMB, MG, and AHE. All authors participated in the data synthesis and presentation of the findings.


    Characteristics of Evidence on Technologies for Aging in Place

    Multimedia Appendix 3 shows an overview of the data and sources that correspond to this section. The number of reviews of evidence on technology for aging in place has increased dramatically over the past few years (Table 6). The earliest review included in our search was published in 2001 [35]. A total of 20 reviews were published between 2001 and 2010. By comparison, 142 reviews were published between 2015 and 2020. Note that the table only includes reviews published before September 13, 2022, when our search was conducted.

    From 2020 to 2021, there was a near doubling in number of reviews. Since our search was conducted at the beginning of September 2022, the figure does not show the full extent of published reviews in 2022. However, it is likely that the trend will continue upwards. The included reviews were published in 183 unique journals. Of those, most journals have only published 1 or 2 reviews since 2001. Only 12 journals have published more than 5 reviews in total since 2001 (Table 7).

    Table 6. Number of reviews by year of publication (n=344).
    Year of publicationReviews, n
    20011
    20020
    20030
    20041
    20051
    20060
    20075
    20084
    20096
    20102
    20114
    20128
    201312
    201414
    20156
    201616
    201723
    201823
    201933
    202047
    202188
    202250
    Table 7. Overview of 12 journals that have published 5 or more reviews on technologies for aging in place since 2001.
    JournalsReviews, n
    Clinical Interventions in Aging5
    Healthcare5
    Assistive Technology6
    Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare7
    Maturitas8
    JMIR Aging10
    International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health11
    Sensors11
    The Gerontologist11
    Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology13
    International Journal of Medical Informatics16
    Journal of Medical Internet Research17

    The reviews refer to 15 unique types of review methods. Of these, the most common were systematic reviews (n=144) and scoping reviews (n=60). The third most common review method was to provide a detailed account of the procedures but refrain from referring to a specific type of review method (n=98). While there were only 13 integrative reviews and 6 narrative reviews, the fact that most other review methods only occurred once or twice made the narrative reviews common by comparison (Table 8).

    Table 8. Overview of the data analysis methods used in the included reviews.
    Data analysis methodReviews, n
    Systematic review144
    Scoping review60
    Integrative review13
    Narrative6
    Mini-review5
    Review of reviews5
    Rapid review2
    Umbrella review1
    Targeted review1
    Meta-interpretive review1
    Focused literature review1
    Descriptive review1
    Clinical review1
    Critical interpretive synthesis1
    Conceptual review1
    Comprehensive review1
    Comparative literature review1
    Reflective review1
    Unspecified98

    Only 1 review referred explicitly to LMICs [36]. This review aimed to identify policy gaps in the delivery and availability of assistive health technology and medical devices for aging populations, particularly in LMICs, and found that practical, life-enhancing support for older people through assistive health technology, medical technology, and related health and social services is a neglected issue.

    Range of Evidence on Technologies for Aging in Place

    Populations

    Multimedia Appendix 4 shows an overview of data and sources that correspond to this section. Some reviews dealt with more than one type of population.

    The included reviews dealt with populations in three ways by (1) describing the population in terms of older people or different types of caring roles (n=253), (2) describing the population in terms of a particular health condition or diagnosis (n=73), or (3) not specifying the population (n=43).

    Of the included reviews, 253 described the population in terms of people and the roles they play in the context of aging. Of those reviews, an overwhelming majority only included studies on older people (n=220). Of the included reviews, 12 reviews dealt with formal and informal caregivers or combinations of these 3 different populations (Table 9).

    Table 9. Overview of the populations in 253 reviews that described the population in terms of people and the roles they play in the context of aging.
    PopulationsReviews, n
    Older people220
    Formal caregivers1
    Formal caregivers and informal caregivers2
    Informal caregivers5
    Older people and formal caregivers5
    Older people, formal caregivers, and informal caregivers4
    Older people and informal caregivers16

    In total, 73 reviews described the population in terms of older people as well as individuals from other age groups, with a particular diagnosis or health problem. These reviews included studies about people of different age groups with different cognitive impairments exclusively (n=41) or in combination with other health problems (n=2). Notably then, these reviews included evidence based on studies of younger people as well as older people. Table 10 provides an overview of the diagnoses and health problems that these reviews used to conceptualize the populations.

    In total, 43 reviews did not specify the population at all. Instead, they referred to the context of aging in place. These reviews were typically concerned with the technical functionality of devices rather than the interplay between what the technology offers and the intended users and their problems.

    Table 10. Overview of the diagnoses and health problems used to conceptualize the population in reviews about older people and others with a particular diagnosis or health problem (in total n=73 reviews).
    Diagnoses and health problemsReviews, n
    Cancer1
    Cardiovascular diseases1
    Cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and asthma1
    Chronic conditions7
    Cognitive impairments41
    Cognitive impairments, cardiovascular diseases, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease1
    Cognitive impairments, neurological disorders, falls, and cardiovascular disease1
    Complex needs1
    Decline in hand grip and dexterity1
    Diabetes1
    Falls4
    Falls and frailty1
    Frailty6
    Frailty and decreased hearing1
    Hip injuries1
    Loneliness and social isolation2
    Mental health2
    Types of Technology

    Multimedia Appendix 5 shows an overview of the data and sources that correspond to these results. Some reviews dealt with more than one type of technology.

    We identified 69 different types of technology that reviews have been concerned with and 5 substantive strategies that the reviews have used to conceptualize the technology with which they are concerned. Two of the 345 reviews used other strategies for conceptualizing technology. One was about co-designed technologies [37]. The other was about what they termed as consumer technology as well as smart environments [38].

    The first and most common strategy (n=140 reviews) is to refer to technology by using descriptive technical terms such as “sensors” [39-48], “artificial intelligence” [49-52], “GPS” [53-55], or “games” [56-60]. The reviews that used this strategy covered 31 different types of technology exclusively or in combination with each other. Most of these reviews were focused on robots or robopets (n=47), information and communication technology (n=23), smart environments (n=17), or sensors (n=10).

    The second strategy (n=65) is to conceptualize technology by the purpose of the technology in relation to a disease or type of health challenge that the technology addresses or is believed to be able to address, for instance, by using terms such as “technology for dementia” [61-70], “technologies for social connectedness” [71-75], “technology for frailty” [76-78], “technology for safety” [79], or “technology for falls” [60,80-84]. Most of the reviews that relied on this strategy dealt with assistive technologies (n=28).

    The third strategy (n=30 reviews) is to refer to technologies in terms of their intended purpose in caring services or practices that they are part of. Such terms include “teleopthamology” [85], “monitoring technologies” [86,87], “telerehabilitation” [88-93], “technology for home health care” [94,95], or “technology for pain management” [96]. Most reviews that relied on this strategy were concerned with telerehabilitation (n=7) or technology for health information (n=6).

    The fourth strategy (n=29 reviews) is to describe the type of technology by using umbrella terms that broadly refer to the use of technology to enable older people to age in place, for instance, by defining the technology of interest in terms of “technology for ageing in place” [11,97-99], “gerontechnology” [100-102], “welfare technology” [103-105], “technology for healthy ageing” [106,107], or “technology for older people” [22,32,108-112].

    The fifth strategy (n=75 reviews) is to describe the type of technology the review is concerned with by way of concepts that refer to the use of technology as part of a broad range of caring services, strategies, and practices, such as, for instance, telecare [113-119], telemedicine [120-125], e-interventions [126], or eHealth [127-143]. Most reviews that used this type of concept to describe the technology they are concerned with dealt with mHealth (n=18), eHealth (n=17), or telehealth (n=18).

    What Types of Problems Have the Reviews Dealt With?

    Multimedia Appendix 6 shows an overview of the corresponding data and sources. Some reviews dealt with more than one type of problem. We identified 49 unique problem topics and 4 principal types of problems.

    The first type of problem is related to different types of care services or caring practices (n=60 reviews). Most of these reviews dealt with problems related to the context of home care (n=30), caring practices in nursing homes or other long-term care institutions (n=11), or rehabilitation (n=7). By contrast, other topics occurred only once or twice, that is, problems related to caregiver burden [144,145], dementia care [146], emergency care services [147], informal care [148], and health information services [149,150].

    The second type of problem is issues related to the management of health-related issues or diseases in the context of aging in place (n=128 reviews). Of those, most dealt with problems related to cognitive impairments either exclusively (n=61) or in combination with one or several other health problems (n=10), that is, cognitive impairment and mental health [151-155], or cognitive impairment, stroke, cardiovascular disease, and falls [156]. Other problems that were featured relatively frequently included falls and balance–related issues (n=19), frailty (n=8), chronic conditions (n=8), and depression (n=5). Meanwhile, other problems related to the management of other health-related issues and diseases featured only once or twice, despite being common health challenges for older people (for instance, Parkinson’s disease [157,158], malnutrition [159], dental health [160], eye diseases [85], and pain [96,161]).

    The third type of problem relates to the experience of aging in place (n=82 reviews). The most common topics in this category were loneliness, including social isolation or connectedness (n=21 reviews), older peoples’ self-care or self-management (n=19 reviews), and active aging (n=16 reviews). Other topics in this category include healthy aging [106,111,137,162-165], information needs [166], quality of life [97,167-173], quality of life and older people’s self-care and self-management [174,175], and activities of daily living exclusively [176-179] or in combination with other topics such as loneliness [180,181], or quality of life [182].

    The fourth type of problem relates to the research and development of technology. This was the most common type of problem (n=285 reviews). The overwhelming majority of reviews that dealt with this type of problem were concerned with barriers and drivers of use and acceptability (n=114), the effect or implications of technology (n=86), or the combination of these 2 topics (n=21). Other common topics included uptake or scalability (n=15), user involvement (n=11), ethical considerations (n=14), feasibility (n=10), and cost-effectiveness or use (n=7).

    Notably, problems related to home care (n=30), loneliness (n=21), cognitive impairments (n=71), barriers and drivers of use and acceptability (n=114 reviews), and the effect or implications of technology (n=86) have been heavily emphasized. Meanwhile, others such as cost-effectiveness or use of technologies (n=7), health information needs (n=1), malnutrition (n=1), dental health (n=1), eye diseases (n=1), and pain management seem underprioritized by comparison.

    What Are the Relationships Between the Problems, Technologies, and Populations That the Reviews Have Dealt With

    Multimedia Appendix 7 shows an evidence map that provides an overview of the relationships between problems, technologies, and populations that the reviews have been concerned with. Some reviews deal with more than one population, technology, and type of problem. Multimedia Appendix 8 shows an overview of the corresponding data and sources.

    As illustrated in the evidence map (Multimedia Appendix 7), many reviews draw on an evidence base that is not specific to older people or their caregivers.

    This is particularly notable in the reviews on the following topics: barriers and drivers of use and acceptability, cognitive impairment, and the effect or implications of technology. The same observation applies to the following types of technology such as assistive technologies, robots, technology for dementia, technology for falls, technology for frailty, telehealth, and technology for Alzheimer disease.

    Summary of Evidence

    In exploring the range and characteristics of reviews on technology for aging in place, we found that the number of reviews, as well as the pace at which they are published, has increased dramatically over time. While some journals such as JMIR Aging, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, the Journal of Medical Internet Research, and The Journal of Medical Informatics have published more reviews on this topic than others, the literature is scattered over 183 unique journals. Most reviews on this topic are systematic reviews (n=144).

    In exploring the range of reviews on technology for aging in place, we identified 3 principal ways that reviews have dealt with populations. Specifically, the 3 ways are describing the population in terms of older people or different types of caring roles (n=253), in terms of people affected with a particular health condition or diagnosis (n=73), or not specifying the population (n=43). These may be considered as methods of conceptualizing populations. We identified 88 unique types of technology that the reviews have dealt with. We also found that there are strong tendencies for reviews to synthesize the evidence on broad and unspecific categories of technology such as “ICT” or “robots” rather than to concentrate on a particular device (a notable exception is a review on personal alarms [183]). Moreover, we identified 5 strategies that the reviews draw on to conceptualize technology. Those strategies are to (1) refer to technology by using descriptive technical terms; (2) conceptualize technology by way of the purpose of the technology about a disease or health issue; (3) refer to technologies in terms of their purpose in caring services or practices; (4) use umbrella terms that broadly refer to the use of technology to enable older people to age in place; and (5) use concepts that refer to the technology as part of caring services, strategies, and practices. We also identified 4 principal types of problems and 49 unique subtypes of problems that the reviews have dealt with. The four principal types are problems related to (1) different types of care services or caring practices, (2) the management of health problems or diseases, (3) the experience of aging in place, and (4) the research and development of technology. The evidence map (Multimedia Appendix 6) demonstrates the relationships between the populations, technologies, and problems studied in the reviews and illustrates the gaps. Notably, many of the reviews on the most studied technologies and problems draw on studies that are not specific to older people or the context of aging in place, either by not specifying the population at all or by including studies on patients of all ages, meaning that topics studied only by such reviews should also be considered gaps.


    Summary of Evidence

    Together, these results speak to the need for regularly updated overviews of ongoing debates in the field. However, they are also illustrative of the challenges that such overviews must overcome. For instance, the lack of conceptual hegemony means that any attempt to describe the technologies that the reviews have been concerned with in purely technical terms fails to grasp the diverse ways that technology is understood in this field. A more fruitful approach is to categorize them according to the different ways that they understand and deal with technology. Used as methodological tools, the strategies of defining populations, conceptualizing technology, the typology of problems, and the overview of the relationships presented here can inform the design of future reviews and enable researchers to purposefully identify gaps and publications that are likely to be of relevance to each other despite conceptual differences that may obscure their similarities.

    It is notable that only 1 review was explicitly concerned with LMICs, considering that the greatest growth in older people globally will be in LMICs [1], particularly in Africa where the population of 60 years and older is expected to increase by more than 100% by 2050 [184]. Similarly, it is notable that in the included reviews, relatively little attention has been paid to formal and informal caregivers. Both formal and informal caregivers play important roles in the context of technology for aging in place. Both formal and informal caregivers frequently speak and act on behalf of older people, especially older people with cognitive impairments when technology developers seek to identify user needs or evaluate the usefulness of the technology [185-188]. In doing so, they act as gatekeepers who shape what types of technology are developed and offered to older people, and equally important, which are not [109]. Both formal and informal caregivers are often the intended users of technology that is meant to enable older people to age in place. Thus, the politics of their lives and working conditions as well as the quality and type of care they are able to provide to older people are shaped by what the technology affords and prohibits [189-191]. Yet, the purpose of the technology is aimed at the needs of the older person or efficiency-related goals in care organizations rather than the improvement of the care workers’ working environment or care burden. Additionally, like all users, both formal and informal caregivers are not just impacted by technologies that enter their lives but they also shape the technology in turn [188,192-199], meaning that the implications that the technology will have in practice are never given beforehand and must always be studied in the context of use [185,187,200,201]. Finally, both informal and formal caregivers must frequently improvise and adapt the technology to render it functional [192,202-205]. Thus, both formal and informal caregivers play important roles in shaping the practices, politics, and services that the technology affords or delimits in the lives of older people who age in place. These roles have been thoroughly described in the literature. Yet, they seem overlooked in reviews on technology for aging in place.

    It is problematic that so many reviews concerned with problems related to technologies for aging in place draw on an evidence base that is not specific to older people. Older people frequently have other needs than younger people even when they share a diagnosis because the aging body presents specific challenges, which increase the risk of illnesses, falls, disability, and death [206]. It is therefore unlikely that reviews that do not focus explicitly on older people are able to grasp and address the specificity of the challenges that older people face as part of aging in place. This primarily concerns reviews on the topics of barriers and drivers of use and acceptability, cognitive impairment, and the effect or implications of technology. It also concerns reviews about assistive technologies, robots, technology for dementia, technology for falls, technology for frailty, telehealth, and technology for Alzheimer disease. While these topics and technologies have frequently been addressed, the value that reviews that do not specify their population or that base their arguments on studies of people of all ages (see Multimedia Appendix 6) is limited, and there is a need for more targeted and age-specific syntheses reviews to better address the unique requirements of older individuals and their caregivers. The strong tendency for reviews in this field to concentrate on broad and unspecific categories of technology, such as “ICT” or “robots” means that there is no straightforward way for practitioners to use these reviews as support in decision-making processes regarding the potential usefulness and challenges related to specific devices.

    Limitations

    Despite the many methodological strengths of the design of a scoping review of reviews, there are some limitations to be considered. These include the potential for bias in the review process, the difficulty ensuring the quality and reliability of the included reviews, and the potential for the review to be influenced by the perspectives and priorities of the researchers conducting the review. Considering the broad eligibility criteria chosen for this review, the results may be considered representative of the characteristics and range of evidence on technologies for aging in place. However, the inclusion of more databases could have expanded the data set even further, and potentially relevant literature that does not use the term aging in place explicitly may have been missed. Moreover, this review has not sought to explore or synthesize the results of the included reviews nor have we considered the quality of the included reviews.

    Conclusions

    The number of published reviews on this topic in the past few years in combination with the rate at which they are published suggests that redundancies and a lack of fruitful synergies between them are likely. The breadth of variation concerning how reviews have dealt with populations, conceptualizations of types of technology, and problems demonstrates the conceptual differences that must be bridged to remedy this problem.

    Together, these results underscore the necessity for improved coordination and collaboration among reviews while also recognizing the potential benefits of more standardized vocabularies.

    The insights gained from the methods of dealing with populations, strategies for conceptualizing types of technology, and the types of problems identified in this study may be used methodologically to identify commonalities and connections that may otherwise be obscured by differing conceptual frameworks.

    There is an urgent need for an examination of the current state of the art in knowledge regarding technology for aging in place in LMICs. Developing a deeper understanding of the conditions surrounding aging in LMICs, especially in Africa, and the implications those conditions have for the roles that technology may play and not play in the lives of older people and their circles of care should be an essential focus of the research agenda.

    Acknowledgments

    The scoping review was conducted by SINTEF as part of a collaboration among SINTEF, WHO, and the International Society for Gerontechnology (ISG) that aim to ensure an emphasis on older people within the current global momentum on AT. The authors would like to thank Espen H Aspnes, former vice president of ISG who leads Pillar II in this collaboration, to which the result of this review contributes. We also wish to thank Professor Sue Levkoff (ScD, MSW, SM), College of Social Work, the University of South Carolina. Endowed chair in SeniorSMART, as well as other members of the International Society for Gerontechnology (ISG) and The WHO contributed to discussions and workshops during the planning stage of this review. For their contributions to the selection of databases, we especially thank Dr Callista Kahonde, researcher and assistant lecturer at Stellenbosch University; Centre for Disability and Rehabilitation Studies, and Anna Spånt Enebuske, MSSc and research officer at The Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union, Finally, we thank our colleague Sandra Klonteig MSc, SINTEF Digital, for her contributions during the data extraction phase, and Mr Sebastian M Bergschöld for his contributions to the evidence map. This study was funded by SINTEF.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    PRISMA-ScR Checklist.

    DOCX File , 56 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Journals to guide the selection of databases.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 116 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 3

    Characteristics of evidence on technologies for ageing in place.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 68 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 4

    Populations.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 62 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 5

    Types of technology.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 69 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 6

    Types of problems.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 66 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 7

    Evidence map.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 71 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 8

    Relationships between problems technologies and populations.

    XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 75 KB
    1. Beard JR, Officer A, de Carvalho IA, Sadana R, Pot AM, Michel JP, et al. The world report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet. 2016;387(10033):2145-2154. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Bloom DE, Chatterji S, Kowal P, Lloyd-Sherlock P, McKee M, Rechel B, et al. Macroeconomic implications of population ageing and selected policy responses. Lancet. 2015;385(9968):649-657. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Wilmoth JR, Bas D, Mukherjee S, Hanif N. In: Luchsinger G, editor. World Social Report 2023: Leaving No One Behind in an Ageing World. New York. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 2023.
    4. Lin SF, Beck AN, Finch BK, Hummer RA, Masters RK. Trends in US older adult disability: exploring age, period, and cohort effects. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(11):2157-2163. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Freedman VA, Spillman BC. Disability and care needs among older Americans. Milbank Q. 2014;92(3):509-541. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Fry AM, Shay DK, Holman RC, Curns AT, Anderson LJ. Trends in hospitalizations for pneumonia among persons aged 65 years or older in the United States, 1988-2002. JAMA. 2005;294(21):2712-2719. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Sudharsanan N, Bloom DE. The demography of aging in low- and middle-income countries: chronological versus functional perspectives. In: Majmundar MK, Hayward MD, editors. Future Directions for the Demography of Aging: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, D.C. National Academies Press; 2018.
    8. Lee J, Smith JP. Health, economic status, and aging in high-income countries. In: Hayward MD, Majmundar MK, editors. Future directions for the demography of aging : proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC. National Academies Press; 2018.
    9. He W, Goodkind D, Kowal P. An aging world: 2015: international population reports. United States Census Bureau. 2015. URL: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p95-16-1.pdf [accessed 2023-11-18]
    10. World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization. 2022. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/186463/9789240694811_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [accessed 2023-11-18]
    11. Ollevier A, Aguiar G, Palomino M, Simpelaere IS. How can technology support ageing in place in healthy older adults? A systematic review. Public Health Rev. 2020;41(1):26. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. A glossary of terms for community health care and services for older persons. World Health Organization. 2004. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/68896 [accessed 2023-11-18]
    13. Martens CT. Aging in which place? Connecting aging in place with individual responsibility, housing markets, and the welfare state. J Hous Elderly. 2017;32(1):1-11. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    14. Healthy places terminology. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm [accessed 2023-11-18]
    15. Kim KI, Gollamudi SS, Steinhubl S. Digital technology to enable aging in place. Exp Gerontol. 2017;88:25-31. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Borg J, Winberg M, Eide AH, Calvo I, Khasnabis C, Zhang W. On the relation between assistive technology system elements and access to assistive products based on 20 country surveys. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(9):1313. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Imagine tomorrow: report on the 2nd WHO global forum on innovation for ageing populations. World Health Organization. 2013. URL: https://extranet.who.int/kobe_centre/sites/default/files/GFIAP_report_0.pdf [accessed 2023-11-18]
    18. Tun SYY, Madanian S, Mirza F. Internet of Things (IoT) applications for elderly care: a reflective review. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021;33(4):855-867. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Yusif S, Soar J, Hafeez-Baig A. Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2016;94:112-116. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Chen YRR, Schulz PJ. The effect of information communication technology interventions on reducing social isolation in the elderly: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(1):e18. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(11):736-771. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Khosravi P, Ghapanchi AH. Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: a systematic literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2016;85(1):17-26. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Liu P, Li G, Jiang S, Liu Y, Leng M, Zhao J, et al. The effect of smart homes on older adults with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Geriatr Nurs. 2019;40(5):522-530. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Pal D, Triyason T, Funikul S. Smart homes and quality of life for the elderly: a systematic review. Presented at: 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM); December 11-13, 2017, 2017; Taichung, Taiwan. [CrossRef]
    25. Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Vrijhoef HJM, Nieboer ME, Aarts S, van der Voort CS, et al. Understanding changes and stability in the long-term use of technologies by seniors who are aging in place: a dynamical framework. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):236. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Sokullu R, Akkaş MA, Demir E. IoT supported smart home for the elderly. Internet Things. 2020;11:100239. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    27. Tinker A, Lansley P. Introducing assistive technology into the existing homes of older people: feasibility, acceptability, costs and outcomes. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(Suppl 1):1-3. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Chalfont G, Mateus C, Varey S, Milligan C. Self-efficacy of older people using technology to self-manage COPD, hypertension, heart failure, or dementia at home: an overview of systematic reviews. Gerontologist. 2021;61(6):e318-e334. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Kunonga TP, Spiers GF, Beyer FR, Hanratty B, Boulton E, Hall A, et al. Effects of digital technologies on older people's access to health and social care: umbrella review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(11):e25887. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. McGarrigle L, Todd C. Promotion of physical activity in older people using mHealth and eHealth technologies: rapid review of reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e22201. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Rocha NP, dos Santos MR, Cerqueira M, Queiros A. Mobile health to support ageing in place: a systematic review of reviews and meta-analyses. Int J E-Health Med Commun. 2019;10(3):1-21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    32. Silva AG, Caravau H, Martins A, Almeida AMP, Silva T, Ribeiro Ó, et al. Procedures of user-centered usability assessment for digital solutions: scoping review of reviews reporting on digital solutions relevant for older adults. JMIR Hum Factors. 2021;8(1):e22774. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. DAC list of ODA recipients. OECD. URL: https:/​/www.​oecd.org/​dac/​financing-sustainable-development/​development-finance-standards/​DAC-List-of-ODA-Recipients-for-reporting-2022-23-flows.​pdf [accessed 2023-11-18]
    35. Kraskowsky LH, Finlayson M. Factors affecting older adults' use of adaptive equipment: review of the literature. Am J Occup Ther. 2001;55(3):303-310. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Garçon L, Khasnabis C, Walker L, Nakatani Y, Lapitan J, Borg J, et al. Medical and assistive health technology: meeting the needs of aging populations. Gerontologist. 2016;56(Suppl 2):S293-S302. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Sumner J, Chong LS, Bundele A, Lim YW. Co-designing technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Gerontologist. 2021;61(7):e395-e409. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Reeder B, Meyer E, Lazar A, Chaudhuri S, Thompson HJ, Demiris G. Framing the evidence for health smart homes and home-based consumer health technologies as a public health intervention for independent aging: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82(7):565-579. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Baig MM, Afifi S, GholamHosseini H, Mirza F. A systematic review of wearable sensors and IOT-based monitoring applications for older adults - a focus on ageing population and independent living. J Med Syst. 2019;43(8):233. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Camp N, Lewis M, Hunter K, Johnston J, Zecca M, Di Nuovo A, et al. Technology used to recognize activities of daily living in community-dwelling older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18(1):163. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Carver LF, Mackinnon D. Health applications of gerontechnology, privacy, and surveillance: a scoping review. Surveill Soc. 2020;18(2):216-230. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    42. Kim D, Bian H, Chang CK, Dong L, Margrett J. In-home monitoring technology for aging in place: scoping review. Interact J Med Res. 2022;11(2):e39005. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Lin Q, Zhang D, Chen L, Ni H, Zhou X. Managing elders’ wandering behavior using sensors-based solutions: a survey. Int J Gerontol. 2014;8(2):49-55. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    44. Lussier M, Lavoie M, Giroux S, Consel C, Guay M, Macoir J, et al. Early detection of mild cognitive impairment with in-home monitoring sensor technologies using functional measures: a systematic review. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2019;23(2):838-847. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Pol MC, Poerbodipoero S, Robben S, Daams J, van Hartingsveldt M, de Vos R, et al. Sensor monitoring to measure and support daily functioning for independently living older people: a systematic review and road map for further development. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(12):2219-2227. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Straiton N, Alharbi M, Bauman A, Neubeck L, Gullick J, Bhindi R, et al. The validity and reliability of consumer-grade activity trackers in older, community-dwelling adults: a systematic review. Maturitas. 2018;112:85-93. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Vavasour G, Giggins OM, Doyle J, Kelly D. How wearable sensors have been utilised to evaluate frailty in older adults: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):112. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Zhong R, Rau PLP. Are cost-effective technologies feasible to measure gait in older adults? A systematic review of evidence-based literature. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;87:103970. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Li R, Wang X, Lawler K, Garg S, Bai Q, Alty J. Applications of artificial intelligence to aid early detection of dementia: a scoping review on current capabilities and future directions. J Biomed Inform. 2022;127:104030. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Loveys K, Prina M, Axford C, Domènec Ò, Weng W, Broadbent E, et al. Artificial intelligence for older people receiving long-term care: a systematic review of acceptability and effectiveness studies. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3(4):e286-e297. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Lukkien DRM, Nap HH, Buimer HP, Peine A, Boon WPC, Ket JCF, et al. Toward responsible artificial intelligence in long-term care: a scoping review on practical approaches. Gerontologist. 2023;63(1):155-168. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Vogan AA, Alnajjar F, Gochoo M, Khalid S. Robots, AI, and cognitive training in an era of mass age-related cognitive decline: a systematic review. IEEE Access. 2020;8:18284-18304. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    53. Ehn M, Richardson MX, Stridsberg SL, Redekop K, Wamala-Andersson S. Mobile safety alarms based on GPS technology in the care of older adults: systematic review of evidence based on a general evidence framework for digital health technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(10):e27267. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Herrera EP. Location-based technologies for supporting elderly pedestrian in "getting lost" events. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(4):315-323. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Suri A, VanSwearingen J, Dunlap P, Redfern MS, Rosso AL, Sejdić E. Facilitators and barriers to real-life mobility in community-dwelling older adults: a narrative review of accelerometry- and global positioning system-based studies. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022;34(8):1733-1746. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Laufer Y, Dar G, Kodesh E. Does a wii-based exercise program enhance balance control of independently functioning older adults? A systematic review. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:1803-1813. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Liu H, Xing Y, Wu Y. Effect of wii fit exercise with balance and lower limb muscle strength in older adults: a meta-analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:812570. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Martinho D, Carneiro J, Corchado JM, Marreiros G. A systematic review of gamification techniques applied to elderly care. Artif Intell Rev. 2020;53(7):4863-4901. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    59. Suleiman-Martos N, García-Lara R, Albendín-García L, Romero-Béjar JL, Cañadas-De La Fuente GA, Monsalve-Reyes C, et al. Effects of active video games on physical function in independent community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2022;78(5):1228-1244. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Wang YL, Hou HT, Tsai CC. A systematic literature review of the impacts of digital games designed for older adults. Educ Gerontol. 2019;46(1):1-17. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    61. Span M, Hettinga M, Vernooij-Dassen M, Eefsting J, Smits C. Involving people with dementia in the development of supportive IT applications: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev. 2013;12(2):535-551. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Dawson A, Bowes A, Kelly F, Velzke K, Ward R. Evidence of what works to support and sustain care at home for people with dementia: a literature review with a systematic approach. BMC Geriatr. 2015;15:59. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Holthe T, Halvorsrud L, Karterud D, Hoel KA, Lund A. Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:863-886. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Huisman C, Huisman E, Kort H. Technological applications contributing to relieve care burden or to sleep of caregivers and people with dementia: a scoping review from the perspective of social isolation. Front Public Health. 2022;10:797176. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Neal D, van den Berg F, Planting C, Ettema T, Dijkstra K, Finnema E, et al. Can use of digital technologies by people with dementia improve self-management and social participation? A systematic review of effect studies. J Clin Med. 2021;10(4):604. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Neal I, du Toit SHJ, Lovarini M. The use of technology to promote meaningful engagement for adults with dementia in residential aged care: a scoping review. Int Psychogeriatr. 2020;32(8):913-935. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Neubauer NA, Azad-Khaneghah P, Miguel-Cruz A, Liu L. What do we know about strategies to manage dementia-related wandering? A scoping review. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2018;10:615-628. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Suijkerbuijk S, Nap HH, Cornelisse L, IJsselsteijn WA, de Kort YAW, Minkman MMN. Active involvement of people with dementia: a systematic review of studies developing supportive technologies. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;69(4):1041-1065. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. van Boekel LC, Wouters EJM, Grimberg BM, van der Meer NJM, Luijkx KG. Perspectives of stakeholders on technology use in the care of community-living older adults with dementia: a systematic literature review. Healthcare (Basel). 2019;7(2):73. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Whitfield T, McConnell B, Renouf P, Mansour H, Zabihi S, Aguirre E, et al. The effect of remotely delivered lifestyle interventions on cognition in older adults without dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2021;72:101505. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Ibarra F, Baez M, Cernuzzi L, Casati F. A systematic review on technology-supported interventions to improve old-age social wellbeing: loneliness, social isolation, and connectedness. J Healthc Eng. 2020;2020:2036842. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Benoit-Dubé L, Jean EK, Aguilar MA, Zuniga AM, Bier N, Couture M, et al. What facilitates the acceptance of technology to promote social participation in later life? A systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2023;18(3):274-284. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Khosravi P, Rezvani A, Wiewiora A. The impact of technology on older adults’ social isolation. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;63:594-603. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    74. Morris ME, Adair B, Ozanne E, Kurowski W, Miller KJ, Pearce AJ, et al. Smart technologies to enhance social connectedness in older people who live at home. Australas J Ageing. 2014;33(3):142-152. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Wei S, Kang B, Bailey DE, Caves K, Lin Y, McConnell ES, et al. Using technology to measure older adults' social networks for health and well-being: a scoping review. Gerontologist. 2022;62(7):e418-e430. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Halim I, Umar RZR, Saptari A, Padmanathan V. A review on hand-operated product parameters influencing hand grip of senior citizen. Int J Integr Eng. 2020;12(4):191-209. [FREE Full text]
    77. Linn N, Goetzinger C, Regnaux JP, Schmitz S, Dessenne C, Fagherazzi G, et al. Digital health interventions among people living with frailty: a scoping review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(9):1802-1812.e21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Mugueta-Aguinaga I, Garcia-Zapirain B. Is technology present in frailty? Technology a back-up tool for dealing with frailty in the elderly: a systematic review. Aging Dis. 2017;8(2):176-195. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    79. Daniel KM, Cason CL, Ferrell S. Emerging technologies to enhance the safety of older people in their homes. Geriatr Nurs. 2009;30(6):384-389. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Chan DKY, Chan LKM, Kuang YM, Le MNV, Celler B. Digital care technologies in people with dementia living in long-term care facilities to prevent falls and manage behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review. Eur J Ageing. 2022;19(3):309-323. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Chaudhuri S, Thompson H, Demiris G. Fall detection devices and their use with older adults: a systematic review. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2014;37(4):178-196. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Griffith L, Sohel N, Walker K, Jiang Y, Mao Y, Hopkins D, et al. Consumer products and fall-related injuries in seniors. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(5):e332-e337. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Miranda-Duro MDC, Nieto-Riveiro L, Concheiro-Moscoso P, Groba B, Pousada T, Canosa N, et al. Occupational therapy and the use of technology on older adult fall prevention: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(2):702. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Ward G, Holliday N, Fielden S, Williams S. Fall detectors: a review of the literature. J Assist Technol. 2012;6(3):202-215. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    85. Fatehi F, Jahedi F, Tay-Kearney ML, Kanagasingam Y. Teleophthalmology for the elderly population: a review of the literature. Int J Med Inform. 2020;136:104089. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Peetoom KKB, Lexis MAS, Joore M, Dirksen CD, De Witte LP. Literature review on monitoring technologies and their outcomes in independently living elderly people. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10(4):271-294. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Read E, Woolsey C, Donelle L, Weeks L, Chinho N. Passive remote monitoring and aging in place: a scoping review. Can J Aging. 2023;42(1):20-32. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Fadzil NHM, Shahar S, Rajikan R, Singh DKA, Ludin AFM, Subramaniam P, et al. A scoping review for usage of telerehabilitation among older adults with mild cognitive impairment or cognitive frailty. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(7):4000. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Fakontis C, Iakovidis P, Lytras D, Kasimis K, Kottaras A, Chasapis G. The efficacy of telerehabilitation in older adults after a hip injury: a narrative review. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med. 2022;34(1):17-28. [CrossRef]
    90. Reeder B, Chung J, Stevens-Lapsley J. Current telerehabilitation research with older adults at home: an integrative review. J Gerontol Nurs. 2016;42(10):15-20. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    91. Saito T, Izawa KP. Effectiveness and feasibility of home-based telerehabilitation for community-dwelling elderly people in Southeast Asian countries and regions: a systematic review. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021;33(10):2657-2669. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Tonga E, Srikesavan C, Williamson E, Lamb SE. Components, design and effectiveness of digital physical rehabilitation interventions for older people: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2022;28(3):162-176. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    93. Velayati F, Ayatollahi H, Hemmat M. A systematic review of the effectiveness of telerehabilitation interventions for therapeutic purposes in the elderly. Methods Inf Med. 2020;59(2-03):104-109. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Husebø AML, Storm M. Virtual visits in home health care for older adults. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:689873. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Marziali E, Serafini JMD, McCleary L. A systematic review of practice standards and research ethics in technology-based home health care intervention programs for older adults. J Aging Health. 2005;17(6):679-696. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    96. Bhattarai P, Phillips JL. The role of digital health technologies in management of pain in older people: an integrative review. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017;68:14-24. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Pani-Harreman KE, Bours GJJW, Zander I, Kempen GIHM, van Duren JMA. Definitions, key themes and aspects of ‘ageing in place’: a scoping review. Ageing Soc. 2021;41(9):2026-2059. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    98. Peek STM, Wouters EJM, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJM. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):235-248. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. Tsertsidis A, Kolkowska E, Hedström K. Factors influencing seniors' acceptance of technology for ageing in place in the post-implementation stage: a literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2019;129:324-333. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Merkel S, Kucharski A. Participatory design in gerontechnology: a systematic literature review. Gerontologist. 2019;59(1):e16-e25. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    101. Rodeschini G. Gerotechnology: a new kind of care for aging? An analysis of the relationship between older people and technology. Nurs Health Sci. 2011;13(4):521-528. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. Sundgren S, Stolt M, Suhonen R. Ethical issues related to the use of gerontechnology in older people care: a scoping review. Nurs Ethics. 2020;27(1):88-103. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Hofmann B. Ethical challenges with welfare technology: a review of the literature. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(2):389-406. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    104. Zander V, Gustafsson C, Stridsberg SL, Borg J. Implementation of welfare technology: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021:1-16. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    105. Zander V, Johansson-Pajala RM, Gustafsson C. Methods to evaluate perspectives of safety, independence, activity, and participation in older persons using welfare technology. A systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(4):373-393. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Kim H, Kelly S, Lafortune L, Brayne C. A scoping review of the conceptual differentiation of technology for healthy aging. Gerontologist. 2021;61(7):e345-e369. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Ludwig W, Wolf KH, Duwenkamp C, Gusew N, Hellrung N, Marschollek M, et al. Health-enabling technologies for the elderly—an overview of services based on a literature review. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2012;106(2):70-78. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Abdi J, Al-Hindawi A, Ng T, Vizcaychipi MP. Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e018815. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Fischer B, Peine A, Östlund B. The importance of user involvement: a systematic review of involving older users in technology design. Gerontologist. 2020;60(7):e513-e523. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Hennessy JL, Rodrigues A. Economic impacts of changing technologies on New Zealand homecare delivery. J Enabling Technol. 2019:188-200. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    111. Morato J, Sanchez-Cuadrado S, Iglesias A, Campillo A, Fernández-Panadero C. Sustainable technologies for older adults. Sustainability. 2021;13(15):8465. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    112. Piau A, Campo E, Rumeau P, Vellas B, Nourhashémi F. Aging society and gerontechnology: a solution for an independent living? J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18(1):97-112. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    113. Barlow J, Singh D, Bayer S, Curry R. A systematic review of the benefits of home telecare for frail elderly people and those with long-term conditions. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13(4):172-179. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    114. Botsis T, Hartvigsen G. Current status and future perspectives in telecare for elderly people suffering from chronic diseases. J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(4):195-203. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    115. Brownsell S, Aldred H, Hawley MS. The role of telecare in supporting the needs of elderly people. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13(6):293-297. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    116. Hvalič-Touzery S, Dolničar V, Prevodnik K. Factors influencing informal carers' acceptance of assistive telecare systems in the pre- and post-implementation phase: a scoping study. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30(5):e1484-e1504. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    117. Karlsen C, Ludvigsen MS, Moe CE, Haraldstad K, Thygesen E. Experiences of community-dwelling older adults with the use of telecare in home care services: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(12):2913-2980. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    118. Saeed N, Manzoor M, Khosravi P. An exploration of usability issues in telecare monitoring systems and possible solutions: a systematic literature review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(3):271-281. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    119. Stewart LSP, McKinstry B. Fear of falling and the use of telecare by older people. Br J Occup Ther. 2012;75(7):304-312. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    120. Brignell M, Wootton R, Gray L. The application of telemedicine to geriatric medicine. Age Ageing. 2007;36(4):369-374. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    121. Jamal NE, Abi-Saleh B, Isma'eel H. Advances in telemedicine for the management of the elderly cardiac patient. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2021;18(9):759-767. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Haralambous B, Subramaniam S, Hwang K, Dow B, LoGiudice D. A narrative review of the evidence regarding the use of telemedicine to deliver video-interpreting during dementia assessments for older people. Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2019;11(3):e12355. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    123. Pang NQ, Lau J, Fong SY, Wong CYH, Tan KK. Telemedicine acceptance among older adult patients with cancer: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(3):e28724. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    124. Ramos-Ríos R, Mateos R, Lojo D, Conn DK, Patterson T. Telepsychogeriatrics: a new horizon in the care of mental health problems in the elderly. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24(11):1708-1724. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    125. Sekhon H, Sekhon K, Launay C, Afililo M, Innocente N, Vahia I, et al. Telemedicine and the rural dementia population: a systematic review. Maturitas. 2021;143:105-114. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    126. Chan JKY, Klainin-Yobas P, Chi Y, Gan JKE, Chow G, Wu XV. The effectiveness of e-interventions on fall, neuromuscular functions and quality of life in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;113:103784. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    127. Airola E. Learning and use of eHealth among older adults living at home in rural and nonrural settings: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(12):e23804. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    128. Ambrens M, Alley S, Oliveira JS, To Q, Delbaere K, Vandelanotte C, et al. Effect of eHealth-delivered exercise programmes on balance in people aged 65 years and over living in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2022;12(6):e051377. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    129. Muellmann S, Forberger S, Möllers T, Bröring E, Zeeb H, Pischke CR. Effectiveness of eHealth interventions for the promotion of physical activity in older adults: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2018;108:93-110. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    130. Preschl B, Wagner B, Forstmeier S, Maercker A. E-health interventions for depression, anxiety disorder, dementia, and other disorders in older adults: a review. J Cyber Ther Rehabil. 2011;4(3):371-385. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    131. Robert C, Erdt M, Lee J, Cao Y, Naharudin NB, Theng YL. Effectiveness of eHealth nutritional interventions for middle-aged and older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5):e15649. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    132. Sanyal C, Stolee P, Juzwishin D, Husereau D. Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):e0198112. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    133. Sülz S, van Elten HJ, Askari M, Weggelaar-Jansen AM, Huijsman R. eHealth applications to support independent living of older persons: scoping review of costs and benefits identified in economic evaluations. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e24363. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    134. Vázquez A, Jenaro C, Flores N, Bagnato MJ, Pérez MC, Cruz M. E-Health interventions for adult and aging population with intellectual disability: a review. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2323. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    135. Wilson J, Heinsch M, Betts D, Booth D, Kay-Lambkin F. Barriers and facilitators to the use of e-health by older adults: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1556. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    136. Bastoni S, Wrede C, da Silva MC, Sanderman R, Gaggioli A, Braakman-Jansen A, et al. Factors influencing implementation of eHealth technologies to support informal dementia care: umbrella review. JMIR Aging. 2021;4(4):e30841. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    137. Buyl R, Beogo I, Fobelets M, Deletroz C, Van Landuyt P, Dequanter S, et al. e-Health interventions for healthy aging: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):128. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    138. Dequanter S, Gagnon MP, Ndiaye MA, Gorus E, Fobelets M, Giguère A, et al. The effectiveness of e-Health solutions for aging with cognitive impairment: a systematic review. Gerontologist. 2021;61(7):e373-e394. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    139. Gaspar AGM, Lapão LV. eHealth for addressing balance disorders in the elderly: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(4):e22215. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    140. Hirvonen N, Enwald H, Känsäkoski H, Eriksson-Backa K, Nguyen H, Huhta AM, et al. Older adults' views on eHealth services: a systematic review of scientific journal articles. Int J Med Inform. 2020;135:104031. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    141. Kwan RYC, Salihu D, Lee PH, Tse M, Cheung DSK, Roopsawang I, et al. The effect of e-health interventions promoting physical activity in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2020;17:7. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    142. Lindberg T, Sandström B, Andersson EK, Borg C, Hjelm M, Nilsson L, et al. Older persons' experience of eHealth services in home health care: a meta-ethnography eHealth services in home health care. Health Informatics J. 2021;27(4):14604582211059370. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    143. Marques B, McIntosh J, Valera A, Gaddam A. Innovative and assistive ehealth technologies for smart therapeutic and rehabilitation outdoor spaces for the elderly demographic. Multimodal Technol Interact. 2020;4(4):1-21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    144. Marasinghe KM. Assistive technologies in reducing caregiver burden among informal caregivers of older adults: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(5):353-360. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    145. Marston HR, Samuels J. A review of age friendly virtual assistive technologies and their effect on daily living for carers and dependent adults. Healthcare (Basel). 2019;7(1):49. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    146. Carswell W, McCullagh PJ, Augusto JC, Martin S, Mulvenna MD, Zheng H, et al. A review of the role of assistive technology for people with dementia in the hours of darkness. Technol Health Care. 2009;17(4):281-304. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    147. Shagerdi G, Ayatollahi H, Hemmat M. Emergency care for the elderly: a review of the application of health information technology. Health Policy Technol. 2022;11(1):100592. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    148. Sriram V, Jenkinson C, Peters M. Informal carers' experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):160. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    149. Marschollek M, Mix S, Wolf KH, Effertz B, Haux R, Steinhagen-Thiessen E. ICT-based health information services for elderly people: past experiences, current trends, and future strategies. Med Inform Internet Med. 2007;32(4):251-261. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    150. McLean B, Hossain N, Donison V, Gray M, Durbano S, Haase K, et al. Providing medical information to older adults in a web-based environment: systematic review. JMIR Aging. 2021;4(1):e24092. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    151. Mordoch E, Osterreicher A, Guse L, Roger K, Thompson G. Use of social commitment robots in the care of elderly people with dementia: a literature review. Maturitas. 2013;74(1):14-20. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    152. Moret-Tatay C, Iborra-Marmolejo I, Jorques-Infante MJ, Esteve-Rodrigo JV, Schwanke CHA, Irigaray TQ. Can virtual assistants perform cognitive assessment in older adults? A review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(12):1310. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    153. Moyle W, Arnautovska U, Ownsworth T, Jones C. Potential of telepresence robots to enhance social connectedness in older adults with dementia: an integrative review of feasibility. Int Psychogeriatr. 2017;29(12):1951-1964. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    154. Moyle W, Murfield J, Lion K. The effectiveness of smart home technologies to support the health outcomes of community-dwelling older adults living with dementia: a scoping review. Int J Med Inform. 2021;153:104513. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    155. Ong YC, Tang A, Tam W. Effectiveness of robot therapy in the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms for individuals with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res. 2021;140:381-394. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    156. Gordon LAN. Assessment of smart watches for management of non-communicable diseases in the ageing population: a systematic review. Geriatrics (Basel). 2018;3(3):56. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    157. Bhidayasiri R, Jitkritsadakul O, Boonrod N, Sringean J, Calne SM, Hattori N, et al. What is the evidence to support home environmental adaptation in Parkinson's disease? A call for multidisciplinary interventions. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2015;21(10):1127-1132. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    158. Giannakopoulou KM, Roussaki I, Demestichas K. Internet of things technologies and machine learning methods for Parkinson's disease diagnosis, monitoring and management: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel). 2022;22(5):1799. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    159. Marx W, Kelly JT, Crichton M, Craven D, Collins J, Mackay H, et al. Is telehealth effective in managing malnutrition in community-dwelling older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2018;111:31-46. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    160. Tan SHX, Lee CKJ, Yong CW, Ding YY. Scoping review: facilitators and barriers in the adoption of teledentistry among older adults. Gerodontology. 2021;38(4):351-365. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    161. Dunham M, Bonacaro A, Schofield P, Bacon L, Spyridonis F, Mehrpouya H. Smartphone applications designed to improve older people's chronic pain management: an integrated systematic review. Geriatrics (Basel). 2021;6(2):40. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    162. Backonja U, Chi NC, Choi Y, Hall AK, Le T, Kang Y, et al. Visualization approaches to support healthy aging: a systematic review. J Innov Health Inform. 2016;23(3):860. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    163. Cicirelli G, Marani R, Petitti A, Milella A, D'Orazio T. Ambient assisted living: a review of technologies, methodologies and future perspectives for healthy aging of population. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(10):3549. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    164. Liu N, Yin J, Tan SSL, Ngiam KY, Teo HH. Mobile health applications for older adults: a systematic review of interface and persuasive feature design. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(11):2483-2501. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    165. Nilsson MY, Andersson S, Magnusson L, Hanson E. Ambient assisted living technology-mediated interventions for older people and their informal carers in the context of healthy ageing: a scoping review. Health Sci Rep. 2021;4(1):e225. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    166. McSweeney-Feld MH. Assistive technology and older adults in disasters: implications for emergency management. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017;11(1):135-139. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    167. Baraković S, Husić JB, van Hoof J, Krejcar O, Maresova P, Akhtar Z, et al. Quality of life framework for personalised ageing: a systematic review of ICT solutions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(8):2940. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    168. Damant J, Knapp M, Freddolino P, Lombard D. Effects of digital engagement on the quality of life of older people. Health Soc Care Community. 2017;25(6):1679-1703. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    169. Guerra S, Rosa C, Sousa L, Neves A, Pestana G, Hernández MJ, et al. The use of robotic pets by community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review. Int J of Soc Robotics. 2022;14(6):1481-1492. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    170. Kruse C, Fohn J, Wilson N, Patlan EN, Zipp S, Mileski M. Utilization barriers and medical outcomes commensurate with the use of telehealth among older adults: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2020;8(8):e20359. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    171. Martínez-Alcalá CI, Pliego-Pastrana P, Rosales-Lagarde A, Lopez-Noguerola JS, Molina-Trinidad EM. Information and communication technologies in the care of the elderly: systematic review of applications aimed at patients with dementia and caregivers. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;3(1):e6. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    172. Siegel C, Dorner TE. Information technologies for active and assisted living-Influences to the quality of life of an ageing society. Int J Med Inform. 2017;100:32-45. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    173. Wong AKC, Bayuo J, Wong FKY, Yuen WS, Lee AYL, Chang PK, et al. Effects of a nurse-led telehealth self-care promotion program on the quality of life of community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(3):e31912. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    174. Choukou MA, Maddahi A, Polyvyana A, Monnin C. Digital health technology for indigenous older adults: a scoping review. Int J Med Inform. 2021;148:104408. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    175. Holthe T, Halvorsrud L, Lund A. Digital assistive technology to support everyday living in community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Clin Interv Aging. 2022;17:519-544. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    176. D'Onofrio G, Sancarlo D, Ricciardi F, Panza F, Seripa D, Cavallo F, et al. Information and communication technologies for the activities of daily living in older patients with dementia: a systematic review. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;57(3):927-935. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    177. Gochoo M, Alnajjar F, Tan TH, Khalid S. Towards privacy-preserved aging in place: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(9):3082. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    178. Gokalp H, Clarke M. Monitoring activities of daily living of the elderly and the potential for its use in telecare and telehealth: a review. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19(12):910-923. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    179. Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, Miguel-Cruz A, Rincon AR. Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2016;91:44-59. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    180. Klimova B, Valis M, Kuca K. Exploring assistive technology as a potential beneficial intervention tool for people with Alzheimer's disease - a systematic review. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018;14:3151-3158. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    181. Ozdemir D, Cibulka J, Stepankova O, Holmerova I. Design and implementation framework of social assistive robotics for people with dementia - a scoping review. Health Technol. 2021;11(2):367-378. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    182. Fares N, Sherratt RS, Elhajj IH. Directing and orienting ICT healthcare solutions to address the needs of the aging population. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(2):147. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    183. Stokke R. The personal emergency response system as a technology innovation in primary health care services: an integrative review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(7):e187. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    184. Nair PS. Population aging in sub-Saharan Africa: present and prospects. Gerontechnology. 2014;13(2):266. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    185. Bergschöld JM. Configuring dementia; how nursing students are taught to shape the sociopolitical role of gerontechnologies. Front Sociol. 2018;3(3) [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    186. Bergschöld JM. Frontline Innovation - How Frontline Care Professionals Innovate Welfare Technology And Services. Trondheim. NTNU; 2018.
    187. Bergschöld JM, Neven L. DIY gerontechnology: circumventing mismatched technologies and bureaucratic procedure by creating care technologies of one's own. Sociol Health Illn. 2020;42(2):232-246. [FREE Full text]
    188. Sørenssen IK, Bergschöld JM. Domesticated smartphones in early childhood education and care settings. Blurring the lines between pedagogical and administrative use. Int J Early Years Educ. 2021;31(4):874-887. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    189. Bergschöld JM. When saving time becomes labor: time, work, and technology in homecare. Nord J Work Life Stud. 2018;8(1):3-21. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    190. Bergschöld JM. Domesticating homecare services; vehicle route problem solver displaced. Nord J Sci Technol Stud. 2016;4(2):41-53. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    191. Oudshoorn N. Telecare Technologies and the Transformation of Healthcare. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK. Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.
    192. Pols J, Moser I. Cold technologies versus warm care? On affective and social relations with and through care technologies. Alter. 2009;3(2):159-178. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    193. Stokke R. From "plug" to "play". Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences. 2019. URL: https://www.inn.no/english/ [accessed 2023-11-19]
    194. Sørensen KH, Lie M, editors. Making Technology Our Own? Domesticating Technology Into Everyday Life. Oslo. Scandinavian University Press; 1996.
    195. Silverstone R, Haddon L. Design and the domesticatoin of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies. Oxford. Oxford University Press; 1996;44-74.
    196. Sørensen KH. Domestication: the enactment of technology. In: Berker T, Hartmann M, Punie Y, Ward KJ, editors. Domestication of Media and Technology. Glasgow. Open University Press; 2006;40-62.
    197. Berker T, Hartmann M, Punie Y, Ward KJ, editors. Domestication of Media and Technology. Glasgow. Open University Press; 2006.
    198. Berker T. Domesticating spaces: sociotechnical studies and the built environment. Sp Cult. 2011;14(3):259-268. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    199. Smits M. Taming monsters: the cultural domestication of new technology. Technol Soc. 2006;28(4):489-504. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    200. Maathuis IJH, Oudshoorn N. Technologies of Compliance? Telecare Technologies and Self-management of Chronic Patients. Enschede. University of Twente; 2015.
    201. Joyce K, Peine A, Neven L, Kohlbacher F. Aging: the socio-material constitution of later life. In: Miller CA, Smith-Doerr L, Fouche R, Felt U, editors. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Fourth Edition. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press; 2017;915-942.
    202. Saborowski M, Kollak I. “How do you care for technology?” – care professionals' experiences with assistive technology in care of the elderly. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2015;93:133-140. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    203. Gómez DL. Little arrangements that matter. Rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015;93:91-101. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    204. Nicolini D. The work to make telemedicine work: a social and articulative view. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(11):2754-2767. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    205. Styhre A. Tinkering with material resources: operating under ambiguous conditions in rock construction work. Learn Organ. 2009;16(5):386-397. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    206. Travers J, Romero-Ortuno R, Bailey J, Cooney MT. Delaying and reversing frailty: a systematic review of primary care interventions. Br J Gen Pract. 2019;69(678):e61-e69. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    LMIC: low- and middle-income country
    mHealth: mobile health
    PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review
    WHO: World Health Organization

    Edited by G Seçkin; submitted 26.06.23; peer-reviewed by J McMurray, SQ Yoong; comments to author 31.07.23; revised version received 25.09.23; accepted 30.10.23; published 22.01.24.

    Copyright

    ©Jenny M Bergschöld, Mari Gunnes, Arne H Eide, Eva Lassemo. Originally published in JMIR Aging (https://aging.jmir.org), 22.01.2024.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Aging, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://aging.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.