Page 55 - Handbook of Electronic Assistive Technology

42 HANDBOOK OF ELECTRONIC ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Other studies have found that the way in which technology is introduced to the patient
and the context around its implementation is an important factor. For example, an older
user said the following in an interview study about telecare and home technologies
(McGee-Lennon et al., 2011, p. 11): ‘It is about the language we use in terms of technology…
when there was a recent publicity about granny tagging and stuff, you know, about tech-
nology that was there to help people but because they use it to tag criminals, if you like, it
was kind of seen as a very negative, you know if we were going to tag old people.’ In this
study with healthy older adults, the participants were concerned about the way technol-
ogy was introduced, and their responses highlight the importance of the users’ percep-
tions of the technology. The way technology is introduced was also an important theme in
a study that Baldwin et al. (2011) did in a group of people with memory impairments after
brain injury. In this study, participants stated that they felt that people who understand
what memory impairment is like, rather than a therapist, should be the ones introducing
technology to others (Baldwin et al., 2011).
The stigma around use is often keenly felt by those with cognitive impairments. People
may have cognitive impairments that are not visible and so they would not want to use
a device that makes this impairment become visible to others (Baldwin et al., 2011).
Cognitive decline in neurodegenerative disorders is associated with issues around auton-
omy and self-efficacy, which technology can exacerbate if not introduced in the right way
(Heerink et al., 2010). Another negative attitude that has been communicated about assis-
tive technology is that people worry that they may become overdependent on technol-
ogy and that this would exacerbate cognitive decline or reduce cognitive abilities further
(Baldwin et al., 2011; Rosenberg et al., 2012). Some stakeholders have communicated that
mainstream technology was less likely to be stigmatised, or make people worry about
stigmatisation than specialist equipment (McGee-Lennon et al., 2012; Clark and McGee-
Lennon, 2011).
These issues illustrate the important role of practitioners and carers when introducing
EAT, not only to establish that the patient is ready to engage with an intervention, but also
to frame the use of the technology in such a way that it is not associated with declining
functional independence. In a focus group discussing smartphone reminding technolo-
gies, a carer of someone with memory impairment after a brain injury described a solu-
tion to this problem: to use the technology themselves to normalise it for the person they
cared for (Jamieson et al., 2015). While it might not always be possible for a caregiver to
also use EAT that is supplied for a patient, this suggests that technology that harnesses
peer support, and is social, might help increase acceptability in situations where it would
otherwise have been associated with negative aspects of disability.

Lack of Personalisation

Research into the uptake of assistive technology has emphasised the importance of tech-
nology catering to the needs of the individual for it to be successful. A number of studies
have noted that some people with cognitive impairments are reluctant to use technology