Canes and walkers are commonly characterized as assistive devices that serve the same purpose: as walking aides. These general views were reappraised and tempered in this descriptive phenomenological study with 40 older women (aged 85 to 98 years) who were unable to leave their homes without help. The purpose was to describe the phenomena of negotiating reliance on canes and walkers as walking devices and the lifeworld context underlying each phenomenon. Relative to lifeworld, there were differences between coming to terms with using a cane and coming to terms with using a walker. Data revealed similarities and distinctions between the basic intentions of relying on canes and walkers and the associated purposes served by canes and walkers. Participants did not view either device as consistently assistive. Findings evoke opportunities for dialogue among older persons, scholars, practitioners, and designers of these devices about coming to terms with such devices and relying on them.
Allen, S.M., Foster, A., & Berg, K. ( 2001). Receiving help at home: The interplay of human and technological assistance. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B(6), S374-S382. doi:10.1093/geronb/56.6.S374
2.
Baltes, P.B. ( 1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366-380. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/amp/index.aspx
3.
Bateni, H., & Maki, B.E. ( 2005). Assistive devices for balance and mobility: Benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 86, 134-145. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2004.04.023
4.
Bynum, H., & Rogers, J.C. ( 1987). The use and effectiveness of assistive devices possessed by patients seen in home care. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 3, 181-191.
5.
Charness, N. ( 2005). Age, technology, and culture: Gerontopia or dystopia?Public Policy & Aging Report, 15, 20-23. Retrieved from http://www.agingsociety.org/agingsociety/publications/public_policy/index.html
6.
Copolillo, A.E. ( 2001). Use of mobility devices: The decision-making process of nine African-American older adults. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 21, 185-200.
7.
Czaja, S.J., Charness, N., Fisk, A.D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S.N., Rogers, W.A., & Sharit, J. ( 2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21, 333-352.doi:10.1037/ 0882-7974.21.2.333
8.
Dubler, N.N. ( 1987). Legal judgments and informed consent in geriatric research . Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 35, 545-549.
9.
Freedman, V.A., Agree, E.M., Martin, L.G., & Cornman, J.C. ( 2006). Trends in the use of assistive technology and personal care for late-life disability, 1992-2001. Gerontologist, 46, 124-127. Retrieved from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/
10.
Gitlin, L.N. ( 1998). The role of social science research in understanding technology use among older adults. In M. G. Ory & G. H. DeFriese (Eds.), Self-care in later life: Research, program, and policy issues (pp. 142-169). New York: Springer.
11.
Gitlin, L.N. ( 2003). Next steps in home modification and assistive technology research. In N. Charness & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Impact of technology on successful aging (pp. 188-202). New York: Springer.
Hartke, R.J.Prohaska, T.R., & Furner, S.E. ( 1998). Older adults and assistive devices: Use, multiple-device use, and need. Journal of Aging and Health, 10, 99-116. doi:10.1177/ 089826439801000106
14.
Husserl, E. ( 1962). Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology (W. R. B. Gibson, Trans.). London: Collier-Macmillan. (Original work published 1913)
15.
Kitchener, M., Ng, T., Lee, H.Y., & Harrington, C. (2008). Assistive technology in Medicaid home- and community-based waiver programs. Gerontologist , 48, 181-189. Retrieved from http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/
16.
Levy, B.R. ( 2001). Eradication of ageism requires addressing the enemy within . Gerontologist, 41, 578-579.
17.
Mann, W.C. ( 2003). Assistive technology. In N. Charness & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Impact of technology on successful aging (pp. 177-187). New York: Springer.
18.
Mann, W.C., Llanes, C., Justiss, M.D., & Tomita, M. ( 2004). Frail older adults’ self-report of their most important assistive device. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health , 24, 4-12. Retrieved from http://www.otjronline.com/
19.
Mollenkopf, H. ( 2003). Assistive technology: Potential and preconditions of useful applications. In N. Charness & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Impact of technology on successful aging (pp. 203-214). New York: Springer.
20.
Porter, E.J. ( 1994a). Older widows’ experience of living alone at home . Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 26, 19-24. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1994.tb00289.x
21.
Porter, E.J. ( 1994b). "Reducing my risks": A phenomenon of older widows’ lived experience. Advances in Nursing Science, 17(2), 54-65. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/advancesinnursingscience/pages/default.aspx
22.
Porter, E.J. ( 1995a). The life-world of older widows: The context of lived experience. Journal of Women & Aging, 7(4), 31-46. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306920~db=all
23.
Porter, E.J. ( 1995b). A phenomenological alternative to the "ADL research tradition."Journal of Aging and Health, 7, 24-45. Retrieved from http://jah.sagepub.com/
24.
Porter, E.J. ( 1998). On "being inspired" by Husserl’s phenomenology: Reflections on Omery’s exposition of phenomenology as a method for nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science, 21(1), 16-28. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/advancesinnursingscience/pages/default.aspx
25.
Porter, E.J. ( 2005). Older widows’ experience of home care. Nursing Research, 54, 296-303.
26.
Porter, E.J., Matsuda, S., & Benson, J.J. ( 2010). Intentions of older homebound women about maintaining proximity to a cane or walker and using it at home. Journal of Applied Gerontology. doi:10.1177/0733464810373906
Resnik, L., Allen, S., Isenstadt, D., Wasserman, M., & Iezzoni, L. ( 2009). Perspectives on use of mobility aids in a diverse population of seniors: Implications for intervention. Disability and Health Journal, 2, 77-85. Retrieved from http://www.disabilityandhealthjnl.com/
29.
Roelands, M., Van Oost, P., Depoorter, A., & Buysse, A. ( 2002). A social-cognitive model to predict the use of assistive devices for mobility and self-care in elderly people. Gerontologist , 42, 39-50. doi:10.1093/geront/42.1.39
30.
Rogers, J.C. ( 1985). Low technology devices. Generations: Journal of the American Society on Aging, 10, 59-61.
31.
Rush, K., & Ouellet, L. ( 1997). Mobility aids and the elderly client. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 23, 7-15.
32.
Sakalys, J. ( 2006). Bringing bodies back in: Embodiment and caring science. International Journal for Human Caring, 10(3), 17-21.
33.
Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. ( 1973). The structures of the lifeworld (R. M. Zaner & H. T. Engelhardt, Jr., Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
34.
Scialfa, C.T., & Fernie, G.R. ( 2006). Adaptive technology. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaire (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (6th ed., pp. 425-441). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
35.
Sharma, S., Reimer-Kirkham, S., & Cochrane, M. ( 2009). Practicing the awareness of embodiment in qualitative health research: Methodological reflections. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 1642-1650. doi:10.1177/1049732309350684
36.
Shumway-Cook, A., Ciol, M.A., Yorkston, K.M., Hoffman, J.M., & Chan, L. ( 2005). Mobility limitations in the Medicare population: Prevalence and sociodemographic and clinical correlates. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53, 1217-1221. doi:10.1111/j.l532-5415.2005.53372.x; (AN 17820391)
37.
Smith, M.H., & Longino, C.F. ( 1995). People using long-term care services. In Z. Harel & R. E. Dunkle (Eds.), Matching people with services in long-term care (pp. 25-48). New York: Springer .
38.
Tideiksaar, R. ( 2002). Falls in older people: Prevention and management (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press.
39.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008a). Family status and household relationship of people 15 years and over, by marital status, age, and sex: 2007. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www./socdemo/hh-fam/cps2007.html
40.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008b). Projections of the population by age and sex for the United States: 2010 to 2050 (NP2008-T12). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www./projections/index.html
41.
Wolff, J.L., Agree, E.M., & Kasper, J.D. ( 2005). Wheelchairs, walkers, and canes: What does Medicare pay for? And who benefits?Health Affairs, 24, 1140-1149. doi:10.1377/ hlthaff.24.4.1140
42.
Zimmer, Z., & Chappell, N.L. (1999). Receptivity to new technology among older adults. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21, 222-230. doi:10.1080/096382899297648
