Search results for ‘Subject term:"older people"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Where does Quality of Life (QoL) fit in the future of technology in the 21st Century?
- Authors:
- MARSTON Hannah R., FREEMAN Shannon, MUSSELWHITE Charles
- Journal article citation:
- Generations Review, 25(3), 2015, pp.8-14.
- Publisher:
- British Society of Gerontology
There is great opportunity to leverage existing technologies to measure Quality of Life (QoL). This article considers the value and use of Quantified Self (QS); also called self/life logging. The QS is a field or movement that enables individuals to incorporate and/or utilise technologies which are wearable. Types of QS may include physical and psychological characteristics such as heart rate and number of steps walked, places visited and tasks completed, dietary choices and number of calories consumed, sleep habits, and self-perceived mood. (Edited publisher abstract)
Exploring the importance of discretionary mobility in later life
- Author:
- MUSSELWHITE Charles
- Journal article citation:
- Working with Older People, 21(1), 2017, pp.49-58.
- Publisher:
- Emerald
Purpose: Travel and mobility for older people has typically focussed on the practical benefits to the individual, for example, in meeting utilitarian needs of shopping, appointments and staying connected to family and friends. However, previous research has hinted that travel for its own sake, to get out and about and feel and experience mobility, may be just as important for older people and is especially missed when individuals give-up driving. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach: This paper examines travel for its own sake, usually referred to as discretionary travel, interviewing 20 older people in each of three different contexts: for drivers, for community transport users and for non-drivers who receive lifts from family and friends. Findings: Older people not only enjoy discretionary travel, but also feel it is beneficial to their health and wellbeing. The car and especially driving, is seen as the best way to fulfil discretionary travel. Community transport users do fulfil discretionary travel needs but these are over formalised and lack spontaneity affecting feelings of control and identity. Receiving lifts from family and friends can often result in older people feeling a burden to the providers of the lifts especially when travel is viewed as discretionary. Practical implications:More needs to be done to ensure discretionary travel needs are met for those without cars, highlighting the importance of such travel to community transport providers and helping reduce the feeling of being a burden to family and friends. Originality/value: Policy, practice and research has tended to focus on transport as a means to an end. However, older people themselves value mobility just as much for its own sake and just to view nature. Such discretionary reasons for mobility are actually very important for health and wellbeing of older people and need more attention. (Publisher abstract)
Older people’s travel and mobility needs: a reflection of a hierarchical model 10 years on
- Authors:
- MUSSELWHITE Charles, HADDAD Hebba
- Journal article citation:
- Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 19(2), 2018, pp.87-105.
- Publisher:
- Emerald
Purpose: In 2010, the authors published a model of older people’s travel and mobility needs in the Quality of Ageing and Older Adults journal (Musselwhite and Haddad, 2010b). The model comprises three levels, practical (the need to get from A to B as quickly, cheaply and efficiently as possible), psychosocial (the need for independence, control and status) and aesthetic needs (the need for travel for its own sake), all which need to be fulfilled to achieve wellbeing and quality of life. Since then, the model has been translated into different languages and been cited 119 times across different formats. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach: Using ten years of analysing feedback that includes articles that cited the model, discussions with academics, policy makers and practitioners as well as from older people themselves, this paper reflects on the original model. Findings: Five key themes are generated from the re-examination: the validity of the model; the utility and usefulness of needs in understanding travel behaviour and turning them into policy or practice; application of the model to different contexts; understanding the relationship between travel needs and health and wellbeing; and fitting the model to future changes in transport and social policy. Originality/value: This reflection on this well-cited and well-used model allows a re-adjustment of the model, updating it to be used in conjunction with policy and practice, especially highlighting the need to further distinguish mobility for aesthetic needs. (Edited publisher abstract)