| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
1 Institute of Gerontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
2 Department of Economics and Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Address correspondence to Dr. Lois M. Verbrugge, Institute of Gerontology, 300 North Ingalls, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2007. E-mail: verbrugg{at}umich.edu
Objectives. Personal and equipment assistance are often used to reduce disability. This study predicts use of assistance, type of assistance, and its efficacy (improvement with assistance) for disabilities in personal care and household management tasks.
Methods. U.S. community-dwellers aged 55+ are studied using the 1994–1995 National Health Interview Survey Disability Supplement. Three types of assistance are considered: Personal Only, Equipment Only, and Both. Efficacy is measured by comparing the degree of difficulty doing a task with versus without assistance.
Results. Severe disability in a task and poor overall health/disability status increase use of assistance for the task, and especially both types rather than one. For people using one type of assistance, poor health/disability status is linked with personal help, but high severity is linked with equipment use. These results reflect high needs for assistance and limited potential for physiological improvement, joined possibly by a strong desire for self-sufficiency among persons who are severely disabled. Controlling for factors that route people to different types of assistance, equipment is more efficacious than personal assistance. Equipment may have distinctive technical and psychological advantages; for example, it can be tailored to a person's specific needs, is available when needed, and maintains self-sufficiency.
Discussion. The results about equipment give impetus to policies that promote development and dissemination of assistive technology.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  P. Clarke, P. Chan, P. L. Santaguida, and A. Colantonio The Use of Mobility Devices Among Institutionalized Older Adults J Aging Health, June 1, 2009; 21(4): 611 - 626. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. C. Cornman and V. A. Freedman Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Mobility Device Use in Late Life J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., January 1, 2008; 63(1): S34 - S41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Horowitz, M. Brennan, J. P. Reinhardt, and T. MacMillan The impact of assistive device use on disability and depression among older adults with age-related vision impairments. J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., September 1, 2006; 61(5): S274 - S280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Meng, B. Friedman, A. W. Dick, B. R. Wamsley, G. M. Eggert, and D. Mukamel Effect of a Voucher Benefit on the Demand for Paid Personal Assistance Gerontologist, April 1, 2006; 46(2): 183 - 192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. W. Williams, C. S. Williams, S. Zimmerman, P. D. Sloane, J. S. Preisser, M. Boustani, and P. S. Reed Characteristics Associated With Mobility Limitation in Long-Term Care Residents With Dementia Gerontologist, October 1, 2005; 45(suppl_1): 62 - 67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. M. Agree, V. A. Freedman, J. C. Cornman, D. A. Wolf, and J. E. Marcotte Reconsidering Substitution in Long-Term Care: When Does Assistive Technology Take the Place of Personal Care? J. Gerontol. B. Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci., September 1, 2005; 60(5): S272 - S280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. M. Agree, V. A. Freedman, and M. Sengupta Factors Influencing the Use of Mobility Technology in Community-Based Long-Term Care J Aging Health, April 1, 2004; 16(2): 267 - 307. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
