BackgroundTechnology can support healthy aging and empower older adults to live independently. However, technology adoption by older adults, particularly assistive technology (AT), is limited and little is known about the types of AT used among older adults. This study explored the use of key information and communication technologies (ICT) and AT among community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 in southern Germany using a paper-based questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions on the three domains sociodemographic aspects, health status, and technology use. Technology use was considered separately for key ICT (smartphone, computer/laptop, and tablet) and a range of 31 different AT. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate analyses, and Bernoulli Naïve Bayes modelling.ResultsThe questionnaire was answered by 616 participants (response rate: 24.64%). ICT were used by 497 (80.68%) participants and were associated with lower age, higher level of education, living together with someone, availability of internet connection, higher interest in technology, and better health status (p < .05). No association was found with sex and size of the hometown. The most frequently owned AT were a landline phone, a body scale, and a blood pressure monitor. Several AT related to functionality, (instrumental) activities of daily living- (IADL), and morbidity were used more frequently among non-ICT users compared to ICT-users: senior mobile phone (19.33% vs. 3.22%), in-house emergency call (13.45% vs. 1.01%), hearing aid (26.89% vs. 16.7%), personal lift (7.56% vs. 1.61%), electronic stand-up aid (4.2% vs. 0%). Those with higher interest in technology reported higher levels of benefit from technology use.ConclusionsDespite the benefits older adults can gain from technology, its use remains low, especially among those with multimorbidity. Particularly newer, more innovative and (I)ADL-related AT appear underutilized. Considering the potential challenges in providing adequate care in the future, it may be crucial to support the use of these specific AT among older and frailer populations. To focus scientific and societal work, AT with a high impact on autonomy ((I)ADL/disease-related) should be distinguished from devices with a low impact on autonomy (household-/ comfort-related).