Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMannheim, Ittay
dc.contributor.authorvan Zaalen, Yvonne
dc.contributor.authorWouters, Eveline J.M.
dc.description.abstractDigital technology is perceived as a solution to meet the ‘challenges’ of ageing and promote independent and healthy ageing. This approach, often driven by policy makers, is leading to the vast development of a so-called ‘Age-tech’ market, mainly focused on healthcare technologies. Despite the potential positive outcomes, adoption and actual use of digital healthcare technologies are often low, and chronological age is often considered a barrier to the adoption of digital technology. Yet, the role of ageism in adoption and actual use is overlooked. This chapter discusses the potential theoretical influence of ageism in applying digital technology in care and healthcare. First, the chapter provides an overview of the perception of age in relation to digital technology and the manifestation of ageism in healthcare. It continues by providing recent evidence, from the field and from the authors’ research experience, in an attempt to describe two potential ways in which ageism is related to adoption and actual use of digital healthcare technology: 1) through the perspectives of different stakeholders (older adults, healthcare professionals, caregivers and designers) and 2) through the design of digital technology. Finally, the chapter discusses possible implications for practice in healthcare, design, research and policy concerning digital technology.
dc.rightsopen access
dc.subject.otherelder care, older people, care, digital agency, digitalization, public health, social services, ageism
dc.subject.otherthema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JH Sociology and anthropology::JHB Sociology
dc.titleChapter 5 Ageism in applying digital technology in healthcare
dc.title.alternativeImplications for adoption and actual use
oapen.relation.isPartOfBookDigital Transformations in Care for Older People
oapen.pages20 & Francis open access titles are reviewed as a minimum at proposal stage by at least two external peer reviewers and an internal editor (additional reviews may be sought and additional content reviewed as required).
peerreview.reviewer.typeInternal editor
peerreview.reviewer.typeExternal peer reviewer
peerreview.titleProposal review

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

open access
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as open access