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.
Materials and methods
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.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Geriatric Oncology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Mobility device use in older adults and incidence of falls and worry about falling: findings from the 2011–2012 National Health and aging trends study.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015; 63: 853-859
- Anticipating the “silver tsunami”: prevalence trajectories and comorbidity burden among older Cancer survivors in the United States.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016; 25: 1029-1036https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0133
- Mobility device use and mobility disability in U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with and without Cancer history.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020; : n/ahttps://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16789
- Long-term chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy among breast cancer survivors: prevalence, risk factors, and fall risk.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016; 159: 327-333
- A population-based study of cardiovascular disease mortality risk in US cancer patients.Eur Heart J. 2019; 40: 3889-3897
- Falls, functioning, and disability among women with persistent symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35: 2604-2612
- Behavioral adaptation and late-life disability: a new spectrum for assessing public health impacts.Am J Public Health. 2014; 104: e88-e94
- Supportive care considerations for older adults with Cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 2627-2634https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.3065
- Exercise barriers and adherence to recommendations in patients with Cancer.JCO Oncol Pract. 2021; 17: e972-e981https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.20.00625
- Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants.Int J Qual Methods. 2019; 18 (1609406919874596)
- Improving the evidence base for treating older adults with Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology statement.J Clin Oncol. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0319
- Engaging older patients with cancer and their caregivers as partners in cancer research.Cancer. 2019; 125: 4124-4133
- Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qual Health Res. 2005; 15: 1277-1288
- NVivo (released in March 2020).2020
- Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Sage Publications, Inc, 1990
- Older adult perceptions of smart home technologies: implications for research, policy & market innovations in healthcare.2007: 1810-1815
- ‘That’s for old so and so’s!’: Does identity influence older adults’ technology adoption decisions?.Ageing & Soc. 2020; 40: 1550-1576
- Research priorities in geriatric oncology for 2013 and beyond.. 2013; 37: 216
- Electronic health information exchange opportunities for self-management of care: responses from older adults with and without cancer history in the United States.Curr Oncol Rep. 2018; 20: 1-8
Published online: March 03, 2023
Accepted: February 14, 2023
Received in revised form: January 19, 2023
Received: September 13, 2022
© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.