Exploring the acceptability of the 'smart cane' to support mobility in older cancer survivors and older adults: A mixed methods study.


Journal

Journal of geriatric oncology
ISSN: 1879-4076
Titre abrégé: J Geriatr Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101534770

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2023
Historique:
received: 13 09 2022
revised: 19 01 2023
accepted: 14 02 2023
pmc-release: 01 04 2024
medline: 18 4 2023
pubmed: 6 3 2023
entrez: 5 3 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Approximately 25% of older cancer survivors (i.e., ≥ 65 years, with cancer history) use ≥1 mobility device, surpassing usage by other older adults. Few tools exist for older "survivors" to regain function or follow lifestyle recommendations. Our goal was to explore opportunities to leverage technology-enabled mobility devices, such as the "smart cane," to support mobility goals in these survivors. The research objective was to assess perceptions related to acceptability, usability and preferences of participants regarding technology-enabled mobility devices in everyday life. We used a convergent mixed-methods design, analyzing quantitative data followed by qualitative focus groups. A pre-survey derived from the Senior Technology Acceptance Model assessed the acceptability of technology-enabled devices among participants, who also participated in one of three focus groups delivered via Zoom. The Zoom sessions included facilitated 90-min discussions and video demonstration of the smart cane. Focus group sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim and thematic content analysis was conducted. We recruited 12 older US survivors. Participants were 58% female, aged 68-86, and 16% non-White. From a pre-survey of participants, 83% said that they liked the idea of technology-enhanced mobility device and 100% said they thought they could be skillful at using a technology-enabled device if training was provided. Though participants were enthusiastic about the smart cane overall and felt the smart cane supported independence for older adults, the themes revealed concerns about safety, accessibility and technology support, as well as the concern for negative impact on self-image due to use of a mobility device. There was a strong preference for working with clinical professionals as the most trusted sources for referrals, if a smart cane was suggested. Older survivors in our sample found the smart cane very acceptable, and supportive of independence for older adults with cancer and other conditions. Participants also provided many insights that revealed additional research needed to support access, safety and usability for older adults, older survivors and caregivers, especially by partnering with clinical professionals.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36871444
pii: S1879-4068(23)00048-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2023.101451
pmc: PMC10106442
mid: NIHMS1882215
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

101451

Subventions

Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R33 AG059206
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002014
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Références

Eur Heart J. 2019 Dec 21;40(48):3889-3897
pubmed: 31761945
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 May;63(5):853-9
pubmed: 25953070
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2627-34
pubmed: 25071112
Curr Oncol Rep. 2018 Mar 23;20(4):30
pubmed: 29572671
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:1810-5
pubmed: 18002331
JCO Oncol Pract. 2021 Jul;17(7):e972-e981
pubmed: 33739853
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug 10;35(23):2604-2612
pubmed: 28586243
Cancer. 2019 Dec 1;125(23):4124-4133
pubmed: 31420878
Cancer Forum. 2013 Nov;37(3):216-221
pubmed: 25346565
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jul;25(7):1029-36
pubmed: 27371756
Am J Public Health. 2014 Feb;104(2):e88-94
pubmed: 24328656
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Sep;159(2):327-33
pubmed: 27510185
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3826-33
pubmed: 26195697
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Dec;68(12):2872-2880
pubmed: 32971567

Auteurs

Shirley M Bluethmann (SM)

Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States of America. Electronic address: sbluethm@wakehealth.edu.

Erika VanDyke (E)

Department of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, United States of America.

Heather Costigan (H)

Department of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, United States of America.

Charles O'Shea (C)

Stakeholders for Care in Oncology & Research for Our Elders Board (SCOREboard), Part of the Cancer and Aging Research Group, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States of America.

Lauren Jodi Van Scoy (LJ)

Department of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, United States of America; Department of Humanities and Public Health Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, United States of America.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH