Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:02:43.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Active subjects of passive monitoring: responses to a passive monitoring system in low-income independent living

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2015

CLARA BERRIDGE
CLARA BERRIDGE*
Affiliation:
Center for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
*
Address for correspondence: Clara Berridge, PhD, MSWCenter for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Brown University School of Public Health, Box G-S121-6, Providence, RI 02912, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Passive monitoring technology is beginning to be reimbursed by third-party payers in the United States of America. Given the low voluntary uptake of these technologies on the market, it is important to understand the concerns and perspectives of users, former users and non-users. In this paper, the range of ways older adults relate to passive monitoring in low-income independent-living residences is presented. This includes experiences of adoption, non-adoption, discontinuation and creative ‘misuse’. The analysis of interviews reveals three key insights. First, assumptions built into the technology about how older adults live present a problem for many users who experience unwanted disruptions and threats to their behavioural autonomy. Second, resident response is varied and challenges the dominant image of residents as passive subjects of a passive monitoring system. Third, the priorities of older adults (e.g. safety, autonomy, privacy, control, contact) are more diverse and multi-faceted than those of the housing organisation staff and family members (e.g. safety, efficiency) who drive the passive monitoring intervention. The tension between needs, desires and the daily lives of older adults and the technological solutions offered to them is made visible by their active responses, including resistance to them. This exposes the active and meaningful qualities of older adults’ decisions and practices.

Keywords

passive remote monitoringnon-useresistancediscontinuationindependent livingsensor systemambient assisted living
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , March 2017 , pp. 537 - 560
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berridge, C. 2015. Breathing room in monitored space: the impact of passive monitoring technology on privacy in independent living. The Gerontologist. Published online April 9, 2015, doi:10.1093/geront/gnv034.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, N. and Webster, A. 2004. New Medical Technologies and Society: Reordering Life. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. L. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Third edition, Thousand Oaks, Sage, California.Google Scholar
Courtney, K. L., Demiris, G., Rantz, M. and Skubic, M. 2008. Needing smart home technologies: the perspectives of older adults in continuing care retirement communities. Informatics in Primary Care, 16, 3, 195–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Dannefer, D., Stein, P., Siders, R. and Patterson, R. S. 2008. Is that all there is? The concept of care and the dialectic of critique. Journal of Aging Studies, 22, 2, 101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demiris, G. 2009. Independence and shared decision making: the role of smart home technology in empowering older adults. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC 2009. Annual International Conference of the IEEE, 6432–36.Google Scholar
Demiris, G. 2010. Information technology and systems in home health care. In Olson, S. (ed.), The Role of Human Factors in Home Health Care: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press, Washington DC, 173–200.Google Scholar
Demiris, G. and Hensel, B. K. 2008. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of ‘smart home’ applications. IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 47, 30–9.Google Scholar
Estes, C. 1993. The aging enterprise re-visited. The Gerontologist, 33, 3, 292–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethical Frameworks for Telecare Technologies for Older People at Home (EFORTT) 2011. Deliverable 7: Final Research Report of Ethical Frameworks for Telecare Technologies for Older People at Home. Submitted to the European Commission. Available online at http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/efortt/documents/Deliverable%207%20Final%20Research%20report.pdf [Accessed May 2015].Google Scholar
Gilleard, C. and Higgs, P. 2010. Aging without agency: theorizing the fourth age. Aging & Mental Health, 14, 2, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.Google Scholar
Goldwater, J. and Harris, Y. 2011. Using technology to enhance the aging experience: a market analysis of existing technologies. Aging International, 36, 1, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Hinder, S., Procter, R. N. and Stones, R. 2013. What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Social Science & Medicine, 93, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, I. R. and Higgs, P. F. 2010. The natural, the normal and the normative: contested terrains in ageing and old age. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 8, 1513–1519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joyce, K. and Mamo, L. 2006. Graying the cyborg: new directions in feminist analyses of aging, science, and technology. In Calasanti, T. and Slevin, K. (eds), Age Matters: Realigning Feminist Thinking. Routledge, New York, 99–121.Google Scholar
LeadingAge and Ziegler 2013. LeadingAge Ziegler 100. Available online at http://www.leadingage.org/uploadedFiles/Content/Tools/Data/LZ_100/2013_LZ100.pdf [Accessed April 2014].Google Scholar
Lehoux, P. 2006. The Problem of Healthcare Technology: Policy Implications for Modern Health Care Systems. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
Lehoux, P. 2008. The duality of health technology in chronic illness: how designers envision our future. Chronic Illness, 4, 2, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorenzen-Huber, L., Boutain, M., Camp, L. J., Shankar, K. and Connelly, K. H. 2011. Privacy, technology, and aging: a proposed framework. Ageing International, 36, 2, 232–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, D. F., Mahoney, E. L. and Liss, E. 2009. AT EASE: automated technology for elder assessment, safety, and environmental monitoring. Gerontechnology, 8, 1, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, D. F., Mutschler, P. H., Tarlow, B. and Liss, E. 2008. Real world implementation lessons and outcomes from the Worker Interactive Networking (WIN) Project: workplace-based online caregiver support and remote monitoring of elders at home. Telemedicine and e-Health, 14, 3, 224–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morozov, E. 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. PublicAffairs, New York.Google Scholar
Mort, M., Roberts, C. and Milligan, C. 2011. Telecare and older people: re-ordering social relations. In von Schomberg, R. (ed.), Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Society Technologies Field. The European Commission's Science in Society Initiative EFORTT Project, 150–64. Available online at http://www.synbioproject.org/process/assets/files/6613/_draft/mep-rapport-2011_en.pdf [Accessed January 2013].Google Scholar
Mortenson, B., Sixsmith, A. and Woolrych, R. 2015. The power(s) of observation: theoretical perspectives on surveillance technologies and older people. Ageing & Society, 35, 3, 512–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neven, L. 2014. By any means? Questioning the link between gerontechnological innovation and older people's wish to live at home. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudshoorn, N. 2011. Telecare Technologies and the Transformation of Healthcare. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. 2003. How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. 2008. User-technology relationships: some recent developments. In Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Third edition, The MIT Press, London, England, 541–565.Google Scholar
Peine, A., Rollwagen, I. and Neven, L. 2014. The rise of the ‘innosumer’ – rethinking older technology users. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 1, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipson, C. 1998. Reconstructing Old Age: New Agendas in Social Theory and Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Pols, J. 2012. Care at a Distance: On the Closeness of Technology. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Satchell, C. and Dourish, P. 2009. Beyond the user: use and non-use in HCI. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer–Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7. ACM, Melbourne, 9–16.Google Scholar
Shankar, K. 2010. Pervasive computing and an aging populace: methodological challenges for understanding privacy implications. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 8, 3, 236–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skubic, M., Alexander, G., Popescu, M., Rantz, M. and Keller, J. 2009. A smart home application to eldercare: current status and lessons learned. Technology and Health Care, 17, 3, 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar