Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 27–43 | Cite as

Sensor-based observations of daily living for aging in place

  • Matthew L. Lee
  • Anind K. Dey
Original Article


Older adults often find it difficult to keep track of their cognitive and functional abilities required for remaining independent in their homes. Healthcare providers need objective, timely, and ecologically valid information about their patient’s behaviors at home for assessing their patient’s condition and whether behavioral problems such as non-adherence are significant problems. Ubiquitous sensors in the home can be used to monitor patient-centered observations of daily living (ODLs) about how well individuals carry out specific tasks that indicate the individual’s abilities for living independently. This article demonstrates through a series of case studies that reviewing ODL data about medication taking, phone use, and coffee making can help individual improve their self-awareness of their abilities and also motivate them to improve their performance of their behaviors at least temporarily. This article also demonstrates how physicians when reviewing ODL data about their patient’s medication adherence, phone use, and coffee making provided new, provides relevant information for physicians to refine their care plans for their patients. The ODL data indicate to physicians which functional areas the patient was performing well and which areas the patient required closer follow-up or immediate attention. Integrating ODLs into clinical workflows remains a challenge; however, the case studies in this article highlight that the preferred setting to review ODL data was during the patient’s visit to the physician’s office, so the physician and patient can have a shared understanding of the patient’s functioning at home. More proactive reviews of ODLs can be triggered by well-tuned alerts received by other members of the clinical team or informal care network. In summary, observations of daily living about the everyday actions of individuals, if reviewed, can result in greater awareness, motivation for improving behaviors, and better-informed decision making about an individual’s health care, enabling individuals to maintain their functional abilities as they age.


Observations of daily living Medication adherence Sensors Smart home Ubiquitous computing 


  1. 1.
    Little AG, Hemsley DR, Volans PJ, Bergmann K (1986) The relationship between alternative assessments of self-care ability in the elderly. Br J Clin Psychol 25(1):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    LaBuda J, Lichtenberg P (1999) The role of cognition, depression, and awareness of deficit in predicting geriatric rehabilitation patients’ IADL performance. Clin Neuropsychol 13(3):258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Okonkwo OC, Griffith HR, Vance DE, Marson DC, Ball KK, Wadley VG (2009) Awareness of functional difficulties in mild cognitive impairment: a multidomain assessment approach. J Am Geriatr Soc 57(6):978–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Owsley C, Sloan M, McGwin G Jr, Ball K (2002) Timed instrumental activities of daily living tasks: relationship to cognitive function and everyday performance assessments in older adults. Gerontology 48(4):254–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weiser M (1995) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 272(3):94–104Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abowd GD, Bobick AF, Essa IA, Mynatt ED, Rogers WA (2002) The aware home: a living laboratory for technologies for successful aging. In: Proceedings of the AAAI-02 workshop automation as caregiver, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Helal S, Mann W, El-Zabadani H, King J, Kaddoura Y, Jansen E (2005) The gator tech smart house: a programmable pervasive space. Computer 38(3):50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Silva GC, Oh B, Yamasaki T, Aizawa K (2005) Experience retrieval in a ubiquitous home. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on continuous archival and retrieval of personal experiences, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Intille S, Larson K, Tapia E, Beaudin J, Kaushik P, Nawyn J, Rockinson R (2006) Using a live-in laboratory for ubiquitous computing research. Pervasive Comput, pp 349–365Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen C, Das B, Cook DJ (2010) A data mining framework for activity recognition in smart environments. In: Proceedings of the 2010 sixth international conference on intelligent environments, pp 80–83Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nazerfard E, Das B, Holder LB, Cook DJ (2010) Conditional random fields for activity recognition in smart environments. In: Proceedings of 2010 ACM conference of international health informatics, pp 282–286Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stanford V (2002) Using pervasive computing to deliver elder care. IEEE Pervasive Comput 1(1):10–13CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rantz M, Porter R, Cheshier D, Otto D, Servey C III, Johnson R, Aud M, Skubic M, Tyrer H, He Z (2008) TigerPlace, a state-academic-private project to revolutionize traditional long-term care. J Hous Elderly 22(1–2):66–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tyrer HW, Aud MA, Alexander G, Skubic M, Rantz M (2007) Early detection of health changes in older adults. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp 4045–4048Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hayes T, Pavel M, Kaye J (2008) An approach for deriving continuous health assessment indicators from in-home sensor data. In: Technology and aging: selected papers from the 2007 international conference on technology and aging, vol 21, pp 130–137Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mamykina L, Mynatt E, Davidson P, Greenblatt D (2008) MAHI: investigation of social scaffolding for reflective thinking in diabetes management. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 477–486Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maitland J, Chalmers M (2010) Self-monitoring, self-awareness, and self-determination in cardiac rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1213–1222Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Consolvo S, McDonald DW, Toscos T, Chen MY, Froehlich J, Harrison B, Klasnja P, Landay JA (2008) Activity sensing in the wild: a field trial of ubifit garden. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1797–1806Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee ML, Dey AK (2010) Embedded assessment of aging adults: a concept validation with stakeholders. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erickson T, Podlaseck M, Sahu S, Dai JD, Chao T, Naphade M (2012) The dubuque water portal: evaluation of the uptake, use and impact of residential water consumption feedback. In: Proceedings of the 30th annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 675–684Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Janz NK, Becker MH (1984) The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Behav 11(1):1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1983) Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 51(3):390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kruse W, Weber E (1990) Dynamics of drug regimen compliance: its assessment by microprocessor-based monitoring. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 38(6):561–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Straka R, Fish J, Benson S, Suh J (1997) Patient self-reporting of compliance does not correspond with electronic monitoring: an evaluation using isosorbide dinitrate as a model drug. Pharmacotherapy 17(1):126–132Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burnier M, Schneider M, Chioléro A, Stubi C, Brunner H (2001) Electronic compliance monitoring in resistant hypertension: the basis for rational therapeutic decisions. J Hypertens 19(2):335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wetzels G, Nelemans P, Schouten J, Dirksen C, van der Weijden T, Stoffers H, Janknegt R, de Leeuw P, Prins M (2007) Electronic monitoring of adherence as a tool to improve blood pressure control: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Hypertens 20(2):119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee ML, Dey AK (2011) Reflecting on pills and phone use: supporting awareness of functional abilities for older adults. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 2095–2104Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lawton MP, Brody EM (1969) Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Nurs Res 19(3):278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hayes TL, Hunt JM, Adami A, Kaye JA (2006). An electronic pillbox for continuous monitoring of medication adherence. In: 28th Annual international conference of the IEEE proceedings of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp 6400–6403Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saxton J, Morrow L, Eschman A, Archer G, Luther J, Zuccolotto A (2009) Computer assessment of mild cognitive impairment. Postgrad Med 121(2):177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fried LP, Herdman SJ, Kuhn KE, Rubin G, Turano K (1991) Preclinical disability: hypotheses about the bottom of the iceberg. J Aging Health 3(2):285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krishef CH (1991) Fundamental approaches to single subject design and analysis. Krieger Publishing Company, MalabarGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abbo E, Zhang Q, Zelder M, Huang E (2008) The increasing number of clinical items addressed during the time of adult primary care visits. J Gen Intern Med 23(12):2058–2065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Rittenhouse D, Shortell S (2009) The patient-centered medical home. J Am Med Assoc 301(19):2038–2040CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philips Research North AmericaBriarcliff ManorUSA
  2. 2.HCI InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations