Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:57:31.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Watching over me: positive, negative and neutral perceptions of in-home monitoring held by independent-living older residents in an Australian pilot study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

DANA KAI BRADFORD ,
YASMIN VAN KASTEREN ,
QING ZHANG  and
MOHAN KARUNANITHI
DANA KAI BRADFORD*
Affiliation:
Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, Pullenvale, Queensland, Australia.
YASMIN VAN KASTEREN
Affiliation:
Adaptive Social and Economic Sciences, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Dutton Park, Queensland, Australia.
QING ZHANG
Affiliation:
Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
MOHAN KARUNANITHI
Affiliation:
Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
*
Address for correspondence: Dana Kai Bradford, Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, 1 Technology Court, Pullenvale, Queensland, 4069, Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With an increase in the proportion of Australians aged over 65, and high government expenditure on residential care, there is a strong imperative to find smart, safe solutions to support older people to stay in their own homes. There is a growing interest in Australia for assistive technologies that provide home monitoring to promote health and wellbeing. This solution will only be viable if it meets with the expectations of older residents and their families. In the first smart homes pilot in Australia, we sought to ascertain barriers and facilitators of this technology. There was an overall positive response to the system, despite a slight tendency for residents to modify their behaviour due to perceived surveillance. Positive outcomes included increases in family communication, health autonomy and advances in technology uptake. Our findings suggest that a combination of considered placement of in-home technology, straightforward medical devices and a supportive human element will ensure that the technology meets the balance of service provision and preservation of dignity. Smart homes could mitigate the challenges associated with aged care while affording peace of mind for seniors and families.

Keywords

aged carein-home monitoringassistive technologiessmart homesperceptions
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 38 , Issue 7 , July 2018 , pp. 1377 - 1398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research 2014. Aged Care in Australia: Part 1 – Policy, Demand and Funding. Research Brief 2014/01, ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research, Sydney.Google Scholar
Attorney-General's Department 2010. Australia to 2050: Future Challenges. Intergenerational Report, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2007. Patterns of Internet Access in Australia, 2006. Catalogue No. 8146.0.55.001, ABS, Canberra.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2013. Population by Age and Sex, Regions of Australia 2013. Catalogue No. 3235.0, ABS, Canberra.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2014. Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2012–13. Catalogue No. 8146.0, ABS, Canberra.Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2012. Australia's Health 2012. Catalogue No. AUS 156, AIHW, Canberra.Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2014 a. Health Expenditure Australia 2012–13. Catalogue No. HWE 61, AIHW, Canberra.Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2014 b. Australia's Health 2014. Australia's Health Series No. 14, Catalogue No. AUS 178, AIHW, Canberra.Google Scholar
Benedek, J. and Miner, T. 2002. Measuring desirability: new methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. http://www.microsoft.com/usability/UEPostings/DesirabilityToolkit.docGoogle Scholar
Bradford, D., Freyne, J. and Karunanithi, M. 2013. Sensors on my bed: the ups and downs of in-home monitoring. In Biswas, J. and Kobayashi, H. (eds), Inclusive Society: Health and Wellbeing in the Community, and Care at Home. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Smart Homes and Health Telematics, ICOST 2013, Singapore. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 10–18.Google Scholar
Bradford, D. and Zhang, Q. 2016. How to save a life: could real time sensor data have saved Mrs Elle? In CHI'16 Extended Abstracts, San Jose, California. ACM, New York, 910–20.Google Scholar
Calsyn, R. J., Roades, L. A. and Calsyn, D. S. 1992. Acquiescence in needs assessment studies of the elderly. The Gerontologist, 32, 2, 246–52.Google Scholar
Cash, M. 2003. Assistive technology and people with dementia. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 13, 4, 313–9.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practice Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Cotten, S. R., Ford, G., Ford, S. and Hale, T. M. 2014. Internet use and depression among retired older adults in the United States: a longitudinal analysis. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69B, 5, 763–71.Google Scholar
Demiris, G. and Hensel, B. K. 2008. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of ‘smart home’ applications. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 47, 33–40.Google Scholar
Demiris, G., Rantz, M. J., Aud, M. A., Marek, K. D., Tyrers, H. W., Skubics, M. and Hussam, A. A. 2004. Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: a pilot study. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 29, 2, 87–94.Google Scholar
Doyle, J., Bailey, C. and Dromey, B. 2009. Experiences of in-home evaluation of independent living technologies for older adults. In Doherty, G., Quigley, A. and Luz, S. (eds), Proceedings of the 3rd Irish Human–Computer Interaction Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 5–10.Google Scholar
Doyle, J., Bailey, C., Ni Scanaill, C. and van den Berg, F. 2014. Lessons learned in deploying independent living technologies to older adults’ homes. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13, 2, 191–204.Google Scholar
Ganyo, M., Dunn, M. and Hope, T. 2011. Ethical issues in the use of fall detectors. Ageing & Society, 31, 8, 1350–67.Google Scholar
Hanson, V. L. 2011. Technology skill and age: what will be the same 20 years from now? Universal Access in the Information Society, 10, 4, 443–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute for Broadband Enabled Studies 2012. Smart Technologies for Older People a Systematic Literature Review of Smart Technologies that Promote Health and Wellbeing of Older People Living at Home. Institute for a Broadband Enabled Society, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Larizza, M., Zukerman, I., Bohnert, F., Russell, R. A., Busija, L., Albrecht, D. W. and Rees, G. 2012. Studies to determine user requirements regarding in-home monitoring systems. In Masthoff, J., Mobasher, B., Desmarais, M.C. and Nkambou, R. (eds), User modeling, adaptation, and personalization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7379, 139–50.Google Scholar
Lie, M., Lindsay, S. and Brittain, K. 2016. Technology and trust: older people's perspectives of a home monitoring system. Ageing & Society, 36, 7, 1501–25.Google Scholar
Menzies Centre 2012. The Menzies-Nous Australian Health Survey 2012. Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Nous Group, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Mortenson, W. B., Sixsmith, A. and Woorych, R. 2013. The powers of observation: theoretical perspectives on surveillance technologies and older people. Ageing & Society, 35, 3, 512–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nederhof, A. 1985. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 3, 263–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rialle, V., Duchêne, F., Noury, N., Bajolle, L. and Demongeot, J. 2002. Health ‘smart’ home: information technology for patients at home. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health, 8, 4, 395–409.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A. J. 2000. An evaluation of an intelligent home monitoring system. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 6, 2, 63–72.Google Scholar
Smith, G. E., Lunde, A. M., Hathaway, J. C. and Vickers, K. S. 2007. Telehealth home monitoring of solitary persons with mild dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias, 22, 1, 20–6.Google Scholar
Tegart, W. J. 2010. Smart Technology for Healthy Longevity. Report of a Study by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Tomita, M. R., Mann, W. C., Stanton, K., Tomita, A. D. and Sundar, V. 2007. Use of currently available smart home technology by frail elders: process and outcomes. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 23, 1, 24–34.Google Scholar
Townsend, D., Knoefel, F. and Goubran, R. 2011. Privacy versus autonomy: a tradeoff model for smart home monitoring technologies. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), New York, 4749–52.Google Scholar
Wild, K., Boise, L., Lundell, J. and Foucek, A. 2008. Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of cognitive and physical health: reactions and perceptions of older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 27, 2, 181–200.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., Karunanithi, M., Bradford, D. and van Kasteren, Y. 2014. Activities of daily living assessment through wireless sensor data. In 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBC. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), New York, 350–4.Google Scholar