IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v12y2022i2p35-d758851.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digitization of Aging-in-Place: An International Comparison of the Value-Framing of New Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara L. Marshall

    (Department of Sociology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON K9L 0G2, Canada)

  • Nicole K. Dalmer

    (Department of Health, Aging and Society McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4M4, Canada)

  • Stephen Katz

    (Department of Sociology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON K9L 0G2, Canada)

  • Eugene Loos

    (School of Governance, Utrecht University, 3511 ZC Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Daniel López Gómez

    (Department of Psychology and Education, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Open University of Catalonia, 08018 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Alexander Peine

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Planning for aging populations has been a growing concern for policy makers across the globe. Integral to strategies for promoting healthy aging are initiatives for ‘aging in place’, linked to services and care that allow older people to remain in their homes and communities. Technological innovations—and especially the development of digital technologies—are increasingly presented as potentially important in helping to support these initiatives. In this study, we employed qualitative document analysis to examine and compare the discursive framing of technology in aging-in-place policy documents collected in three countries: The Netherlands, Spain, and Canada. We focus on the framing of technological interventions in relation to values such as quality of life, autonomy/independence, risk management, social inclusion, ‘active aging’, sustainability/efficiency of health care delivery, support for caregivers, and older peoples’ rights. The findings suggest that although all three countries reflected common understandings of the challenges of aging populations, the desirability of supporting aging in place, and the appropriateness of digital technologies in supporting the latter, different value-framings were apparent. We argue that attention to making these values explicit is important to understanding the role of social policies in imagining aging futures and the presumed role of technological innovation in their enactment.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara L. Marshall & Nicole K. Dalmer & Stephen Katz & Eugene Loos & Daniel López Gómez & Alexander Peine, 2022. "Digitization of Aging-in-Place: An International Comparison of the Value-Framing of New Technologies," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:35-:d:758851
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/2/35/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/2/35/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louis Neven & Alexander Peine, 2017. "From Triple Win to Triple Sin: How a Problematic Future Discourse is Shaping the Way People Age with Technology," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Giacomini, Mita & Hurley, Jeremiah & Gold, Irving & Smith, Patricia & Abelson, Julia, 2004. "The policy analysis of `values talk': lessons from Canadian health reform," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 15-24, January.
    3. Carol Bacchi, 2016. "Problematizations in Health Policy," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(2), pages 21582440166, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tony Sandset & Eivind Engebretsen, 2022. "Sustainable Healthcare Education as a Practice of Governmentality?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Hsu, Eric L. & Elliott, Anthony & Ishii, Yukari & Sawai, Atsushi & Katagiri, Masataka, 2020. "The development of aged care robots in Japan as a varied process," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Yannai Kranzler & Yael Parag & Nadav Davidovitch, 2019. "Public Health from the Middle-Out: A New Analytical Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Peter, Elizabeth & Spalding, Karen & Kenny, Nuala & Conrad, Patricia & McKeever, Patricia & Macfarlane, Amy, 2007. "Neither seen nor heard: Children and homecare policy in Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1624-1635, April.
    5. Ulrike Bechtold & Natalie Stauder & Martin Fieder, 2021. "Let’s Walk It: Mobility and the Perceived Quality of Life in Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    7. Amy Weimann & Maylene Shung-King & Nicole McCreedy & Lambed Tatah & Clarisse Mapa-Tassou & Trish Muzenda & Ishtar Govia & Vincent Were & Tolu Oni, 2021. "Intersectoral Action for Addressing NCDs through the Food Environment: An Analysis of NCD Framing in Global Policies and Its Relevance for the African Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Jyoti Choudrie & Efpraxia Zamani & Chike Obuekwe, 2022. "Bridging the Digital Divide in Ethnic Minority Older Adults: an Organisational Qualitative Study," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1355-1375, August.
    9. Anthony J Culyer & Yvonne Bombard, 2011. "An Equity Checklist: a Framework for Health Technology Assessments," Working Papers 062cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. Jawad, Rana, 2019. "A new era for social protection analysis in LMICs? A critical social policy perspective from the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Vera Gallistl & Rebekka Rohner & Alexander Seifert & Anna Wanka, 2020. "Configuring the Older Non-User: Between Research, Policy and Practice of Digital Exclusion," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 233-243.
    12. Russell, Jill & Greenhalgh, Trisha, 2012. "Affordability as a discursive accomplishment in a changing National Health Service," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2463-2471.
    13. Lehoux, P. & Grimard, D., 2018. "When robots care: Public deliberations on how technology and humans may support independent living for older adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 330-337.
    14. Björn Fischer & Britt Östlund & Nicole K. Dalmer & Andrea Rosales & Alexander Peine & Eugène Loos & Louis Neven & Barbara Marshall, 2021. "Co-Design as Learning: The Differences of Learning When Involving Older People in Digitalization in Four Countries," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Giacomini, Mita & Kenny, Nuala & DeJean, Deirdre, 2009. "Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: Foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 58-71, January.
    16. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    17. Hanna Köttl & Ella Cohn-Schwartz & Liat Ayalon & Deborah S Carr, 2021. "Self-Perceptions of Aging and Everyday ICT Engagement: A Test of Reciprocal Associations [Risk profiles for mild cognitive impairment and progression to dementia are gender specific]," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 76(9), pages 1913-1922.
    18. Grant Gibson & Michel Grignon & Jeremiah Hurley & Li Wang, 2019. "Here comes the SUN: Self‐assessed unmet need, worsening health outcomes, and health care inequity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 727-735, June.
    19. Ulrike Bechtold & Natalie Stauder & Martin Fieder & Harald Wilfing, 2022. "Stuck in the Present: A Human Lack of Ability to Visualise (Different) Needs in the Future May Hamper Timely Implementation of AAL and Supportive Technology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-14, June.
    20. Lucie Vidovićová & Tereza Menšíková, 2023. "Materiality, Corporeality, and Relationality in Older Human–Robot Interaction (OHRI)," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:35-:d:758851. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.