Baby Boomer Knowledge and Stigma toward Aging in Place and Residential Assistive Devices

Abstract

Aging in place (AIP) in one's existing residence is a more affordable housing alternative than long‐term care and is desired by the majority of those aged 50–80. Considerable residential upgrades are required to accommodate the physical and mental effects of aging; however, U.S. housing is severely lacking in assistive devices required to respond to those needs. While research suggests that assistive device implementation can delay long‐term institutionalization, baby boomer stigma and lack of knowledge may have an impact on why so few AIP upgrades have occurred. Using design thinking strategies, we explored baby boomer knowledge and stigma toward the term AIP and residential assistive devices. A secondary purpose was to expose baby boomers to an AIP checklist to determine if the checklist would influence participant knowledge and stigma. Fifteen baby boomers (n = 15) participated in the study, and less than half expressed (n = 7) familiarity with the term AIP. Participants used alternate phrases such as “avoiding the nursing home”; or “doing things to stay independent.” Most participants did not associate stigma toward the term AIP; yet, their knowledge of AIP devices was minimal until exposed to the AIP checklist. After exposure to the checklist, participants were significantly more familiar with the term AIP and significantly more likely to think standard products could be considered as AIP residential assistive devices. In this study, we also used participant created prototypes to understand the means by which baby boomers would like to gain knowledge on AIP upgrades.

An integrative review of human‐centered design and design thinking for the creation of health interventions

“…Of the 24 manuscripts, the majority were physician-led,15 (63%), 20,[22][23][24]29,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] ; whereas, 6 (25%) were nurse-led, 28,51,[56][57][58][59] see Tables 1 and 2. 15,19,24,28,29,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] The articles included a mix of populations; patients were included in 11/24 (46%) of the articles, 15,19,20,23,24,28,46,51,…”

“…15,20,22,28,46,51,56 Topics included Aging in Place, Infant Mortality, Childhood Asthma, COVID19, Pain Management and many others; there were no articles that focused on the same topic (Table 2). 28,49,58,60,61 To accurately assess the literature using the Caldwell framework, the articles were categorized as either qualitative (15 [63%]) 15,23,24,28,29,[46][47][48]55,56,[58][59][60] or multimethods (9 [37%]) 19,[49][50][51][52][53][54]57,61 if they included both a qualitative and quantitative component; no articles were identified solely as quantitative (Tables 1 and 2).…”

“…Of those that used multimethods, 3 (33%) were classified as fair quality 19,49,57 and 6 (67%) were classified as good quality [50][51][52][53][54]61 ; none were classified as poor quality (Tables 1 and 2).…”

“…Of the articles overall, 10/24 (42%) included all phases of the DT method 23,24,28,46,47,[53][54][55]58,59 ; the Empathy phase was included in 20 (83%), 19,20,[22][23][24]26,28,29,[46][47][48][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]61 Co-design element 15,19,20,22,24,28,29,47,51,55,56,59,61 ; 6 (46%) provided compensation 19,22,24,29,47,53 (Tables 1 and 2; Figure 2A).…”

“…When analyzing the articles by approach or methodology, 12 (50%) stated they were using the HCD approach, 19,20,22,28,46,47,52-55,57,58 5 (21%) the DT methodology, 48,50,56,59,60 and 7 (29%) stated they were using both the HCD approach and DT methodology (HCD + DT; Tables 1 and 2). 15,23,24,29,49,51,61 Of those specifically using the HCD approach, all included the Empathy phase 12/12 (100%), [23][24][25]28,46,47,[52][53][54][55]57,58 10 (83%) included the Define phase, 24,25,28,46,47,[52][53][54][55]58 8 (67%)…”