Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T05:27:23.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ETHICS OF SMART HOUSE WELFARE TECHNOLOGY FOR OLDER ADULTS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

Veralia Gabriela Sánchez Open the ORCID record for Veralia Gabriela Sánchez [Opens in a new window] ,
Ingrid Taylor  and
Pia Cecilie Bing-Jonsson
Veralia Gabriela Sánchez
Affiliation:
Faculty of Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime Sciences, University College of Southeast [email protected]
Ingrid Taylor
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway
Pia Cecilie Bing-Jonsson
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The University College of Southeast Norway has an on-going project to develop a smart house welfare system to allow older adults and people with disabilities to remain in their homes for as long as they wish in safe, dignified, living conditions.

Objectives: This article reviews reported ethical challenges to implementing smart houses for older adults.

Methods: A systematic literature review identified twenty-four articles in English, French, Spanish, and Norwegian, which were analyzed and synthesized using Hofmann's question list to investigate the reported ethical challenges.

Results: Smart houses offer a promising way to improve access to home care for older adults and people with disabilities. However, important ethical challenges arise when implementing smart houses, including cost-effectiveness, privacy, autonomy, informed consent, dignity, safety, and trust.

Conclusions: The identified ethical challenges are important to consider when developing smart house systems. Due to the limitations of smart house technology, designers and users should be mindful that smart houses can achieve a safer and more dignified life-style but cannot solve all the challenges related to ageing, disabilities, and disease. At some point, smart houses can no longer help persons as they develop needs that smart houses cannot meet.

Keywords

Assistive technologyAssistive livingPrivacyEthical challengesNorway
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , 2017 , pp. 691 - 699
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Eurostat. Population structure and ageing. Eurostat-Statistics Explained; 2017 [updated December 22, 2016]. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing (accessed July 3, 2017).Google Scholar
2. sentralbyrå, S. Population and population changes, 1 January 2017. 2017 [updated February 23, 2017]; https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/folkemengde/aar-per-1-januar (accessed March 1, 2017).Google Scholar
3. Sentralbyrå, S. Key figures for the population. 2017 [updated February 23, 2017]; https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/nokkeltall/population (accessed March 1, 2017).Google Scholar
4. Chan, M, Estève, D, Escriba, C, Campo, E. A review of smart homes—Present state and future challenges. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2008;91:55–81.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Eurostat. Distribution of population aged 65 and over by type of household - EU-SILC survey. 2017 [updated January 8, 2017]; http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_lvps30&lang=en (accessed September 8, 2017).Google Scholar
6. Hofmann, B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, Mulrow, C, Gøtzsche, PC, Ioannidis, JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339.Google Scholar
8. Hofmann, B. Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:631–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Assasi, N, Schwartz, L, Tarride, J-E, Campbell, K, Goeree, R. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: A systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:203–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Hofmann, B. Toward a method for exposing and elucidating ethical issues with human cognitive enhancement technologies. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23:413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Sadri, F. Ambient intelligence: A survey. ACM Comput Surv. 2011;43:36.1-.66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Detweiler, CA, Hindriks, KV. A survey of values, technologies and contexts in pervasive healthcare. Pervasive Mob Comput. 2016;27:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Ding, D, Cooper, RA, Pasquina, PF, Fici-Pasquina, L. Sensor technology for smart homes. Maturitas. 2011;69:131–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Friedewald, M, Vildjiounaite, E, Punie, Y, Wright, D. Privacy, identity and security in ambient intelligence: A scenario analysis. Telematics Informatics. 2007;24:15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Rozo, C. Consideraciones éticas de la tecnología de asistencia en personas en condición de discapacidad: Posibilitar o limitar la autonomía? Rev Latinoam Bioét. 2010;10:56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Demiris, G, Hensel, B. ‘Smart homes’ for patients at the end of life. J Hous Elderly. 2009;23:106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Roberts, C, Mort, M. Reshaping what counts as care: Older people, work and new technologies. ALTER - Eur J Disabil Res. 2009;3:138–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Powers, BA. Everyday ethics in assisted living facilitites: A framework for assessing resident-focused issues. J Gerontol Nurs. 2005;31:31–37.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Berridge, C. Breathing room in monitored space: The impact of passive monitoring technology on privacy in independent living. Gerontologist. 2016;56:807–816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Essén, A. The two facets of electronic care surveillance: An exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:128–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Mahoney, DF, Purtilo, RB, Webbe, FM, Alwan, M, Bharucha, AJ, Adlam, TD, et al. In-home monitoring of persons with dementia: Ethical guidelines for technology research and development. Alzheimers Dement. 2007;3:217–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Hofmann, B. Ethical challenges with welfare technology: A review of the literature. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19:389–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Novitzky, P, Smeaton, A, Chen, C, Irving, K, Jacquemard, T, O'Brolcháin, F, et al. A review of contemporary work on the ethics of ambient assisted living technologies for people with dementia. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21:707–765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Noury, N, Virone, G, Ye, J, Rialle, V, Demongeot, J. New trends in health smart homes. Nouvelle directions en habitats intelligents pour la santé. ITBM-RBM. 2003;24:122–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Rozo Reyes, CM. Disability and technosociety. Rev Latinoam Bioét. 2016;16:118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Rauhala, M, Topo, P. Independent living, technology and ethics. Technol Disabil. 2003;15:205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. sentralbyrå, S. Nursing and care services. 2016 [updated June 29, 2016]; https://www.ssb.no/en/helse/statistikker/pleie/aar/2016-06-29#content (accessed December 21, 2016).Google Scholar
28. Rashidi, P, Mihailidis, A. A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2013;17:579–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Saranummi, N, Kivisaari, S, Särkikoski, T, Graafmans, J. Ageing & technology. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technology Studies, Joint Research Centre of the European Union; 1997.Google Scholar
30. Finken, S, Mörtberg, C. The thinking house: On configuring of an infrastructure of care. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop, Infrastructures for Healthcare: Global Healthcare; 2011.Google Scholar
31. Trydegård, G-B. Care work in changing welfare states: Nordic care workers’ experiences. Eur J Ageing. 2012;9:119–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Fjelltun, AMS, Henriksen, N, Norberg, A, Gilje, F, Normann, HK. Carers’ and nurses’ appraisals of needs of nursing home placement for frail older in Norway. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18:3079–3088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Demiris, G, Rantz, MJ, Aud, MA, Marek, KD, Tyrer, HW, Skubic, M, et al. Older adults' attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: A pilot study. Med Inform Internet Med. 2004;29:87–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Sanchez, VG, Pfeiffer, CF, eds. Legal aspects on smart house welfare technology for older people in norway. Intelligent environments 2016. Workshop Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Environments; IOS Press; 2016.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sánchez et al supplementary material 1

Appendix

Download Sánchez et al supplementary material 1(File)
File 14.5 KB