The Use of Technology as a Creative Means of Ergonomics to Support the Realization of Activities in an Aging Population: A Review of the Literature

  • Pierre-Yves TherriaultEmail author
  • Galaad LefayEmail author
  • Marie-Michèle LordEmail author
  • Alexe DesaulnierEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 826)


Given the aging of the population in most Western countries, the challenges to support the daily activities of the aging population are of interest to ergonomists. The use of innovative technologies to support older people when they encounter difficulties in carrying out their daily activities is already possible. The purpose of this presentation is to provide insights into what is known to date in the use of assistive technologies for an aging population. To do this, a synthesis of knowledge has been realized. Peer reviewed papers of good scientific quality was reviewed (n = 39). Considering the development of ergonomically-based technology products, a noticeable difference between the design and usage objectives has been noted. This implies that stakeholders, such as ergonomists, therapists do not use technology in the same direction for which it was designed. In addition, it is possible to note that the least explored objectives are those related to the concept of development and capacity optimization of the elderly. Thus, the proposal of an integrative concept to document both the development, use, introduction and evaluation of assistive technologies for the elderly can be very interesting for the discipline and will be discussed in this article.


Assistive technology Rehabilitation Technology continuum Enabling environment 


Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    World health Organization (2016): World report on disabilityGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laville A, Volkoff S (1993) Age, santé, travail: le déclin et la construction. In: Actes du XXVIIIème congrès de la SELF, pp 22–24. SELF, GenèveGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azéma B, Martinez N (2005) Les personnes handicapées vieillissantes: espérances de vie et de santé; qualité de vie. Revue française des affaires sociales 2:295–333Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux: Plan stratégique: 2015–2020. (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bobillier-Chaumon MÉ, Ciobanu RO (2009) Les nouvelles technologies au service des personnes âgées: entre promesses et interrogations–une revue de questions. Psychologie française 54(3):271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barlow J, Singh D, Bayer S, Curry R (2007) A systematic review of the benefits of home telecare for frail elderly people and those with long-term conditions. J Telemed Telecare 13(4):172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouchard B (2013) Recherche sur les technologies d’assistance our le maintien domicile des ersonnes atteintes d’Alzheimer. In: Journée de la recherche du FRQNT, Sherbrooke, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khosravi P, Ghapanchi AH (2015) Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: a systematic literature review. Int J Med Inform 85(1):17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reeder B, Meyer E, Lazar A, Chaudhuri S, Thompson HJ, Demiris G (2013) Framing the evidence for health smart homes and home-based consumer health technologies as a public health intervention for independent aging: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 82(7):565–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edyburn DL (2004) Assistive technology in K-12 schools: understanding the impact of the AT consideration mandateGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fink A (1998) Doing the review: a reader’s guide chapter. In: Fink A (ed) Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agree E (2014) The potential for technology to enhance independence for those aging with a disability. Disabil Health J 7(1 Suppl): S33–S39. MEDLINE with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed 2 Feb 2018Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bismuth S, Villars H, Durliat I, Boyer P, Oustric S (2012) Gerontotechnologies likely to enable patients with soft cognitive deficit and alzheimer’s disease at the light stage to stay home. Les cahiers de l’année gérontologique 4(3):310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bobillier-Chaumon MÉ, Cuvillier B, Durif-Bruckert C, Cros F, Vanhille M, Salima B (2014) Concevoir une technologie ambiante pour le maintien à domicile: une démarche prospective par la prise en compte des systèmes d’activité. Le travail humain 77(1):39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boll S, Heuten W, Meyer EM, Meis M (2010) Development of a multimodal reminder system for older persons in their residential home. Inform Health Soc Care 35(3):104–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brummel-Smith K, Dangiolo M (2009) Assistive technologies in the home. Clin Geriatric Med 25(1):61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cao J, Xie SQ, Das R, Zhu GL (2014) Control strategies for effective robot assisted gait rehabilitation: the state of art and future prospects. Med Eng Phys 36(12):1555–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chan M, Estève D, Escriba C, Campo E (2008) A review of smart homes - present state and future challenges. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 91(1):55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen K, Chan AHS (2013) Use or non-use of gerontechnology - a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 10(10):4645–4666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Culnaert E, Galy S, Chotard A, Tomas J (2009) Séniors et dépendance: La domotique au service du maintien à domicile. L’Aquitaine numérique - La lettre d’information d’AEC 21:9–16Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eaton L, Gordon D, Doorenbos A et al (2014) Development and implementation of a telehealth-enhanced intervention for pain and symptom management. Contemp Clin Trials 38(2): 213–220. MEDLINE with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed 2 Feb 2018Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karmarkar AM, Dicianno BE, Graham JE, Cooper R, Kelleher A, Cooper RA (2012) Factors associated with provision of wheelchairs in older adults. Assistive Technol 24(3):155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A, Severinson-Eklundh K (2011) An exploratory study of health professionals’ attitudes about robotic telepresence technology. J Technol Hum Serv 29(4):263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laufer Y, Dar G, Kodesh E (2014) Does a Wii-based exercise program enhance balance control of independently functioning older adults? a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging 9:1803–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lockey K, Jennings MB, Shaw L (2010) Exploring hearing aid use in older women through narratives. Int J Audiol 49(8):542–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Melander-Wikman A, Fältholm Y, Gard G (2008) Safety vs privacy: elderly persons’ experiences of a mobile safety alarm. Health Soc Care Commun 16(4):337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Melillo P, Castaldo R, Sannino G, Orrico A, de Pietro G, Pecchia L (2015) Wearable technology and ECG processing for fall risk assessment, prevention and detection. In: 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp 7740–7743. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nef T, Urwyler P, Büchler M, Tarnanas I, Stucki R, Cazzoli D, Mosimann U (2015) Evaluation of three state-of-the-art classifiers for recognition of activities of daily living from smart home ambient data. Sensors 15(5):11725–11740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roy P (2012) Modèle possibiliste pour la reconnaissance d’activités: habitat intelligent. Université de Sherbrooke, SherbrookeGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dejean PH, Naël M (2004) Ergonomie du produit. Falzon DP (Ed) Ergonomie, Paris: PUF, pp 463–477Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université du Québec à Trois-RivièresTrois-RivièresCanada
  2. 2.Université Paris DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations