Advertisement

Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 1181–1195 | Cite as

DigiSwitch: A Device to Allow Older Adults to Monitor and Direct the Collection and Transmission of Health Information Collected at Home

  • Kelly E. CaineEmail author
  • Celine Y. Zimmerman
  • Zachary Schall-Zimmerman
  • William R. Hazlewood
  • L. Jean Camp
  • Katherine H. Connelly
  • Lesa L. Huber
  • Kalpana Shankar
Original Paper

Abstract

Home monitoring represents an appealing alternative for older adults considering out-of-home long term care and an avenue for informal caregivers and health care providers to gain decision-critical information about an older adults’ health and well-being. However, privacy concerns about having 24/7 monitoring, especially video monitoring, in the home environment have been cited as a major barrier in the design of home monitoring systems. In this paper we describe the design and evaluation of “DigiSwitch”, a medical system designed to allow older adults to view information as it is collected about them and temporarily cease transmission of data for privacy reasons. Results from a series of iterative user studies suggest that control over the transmission of monitoring data from the home is helpful for maintaining user privacy. The studies demonstrate that older adults are able to use the DigiSwitch system to monitor and direct the collection and transmission of health information in their homes, providing these participants with a way to simultaneously maintain privacy and benefit from home monitoring technology.

Keywords

Aging in place Home monitoring Home Older adult Privacy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Portions of this material were presented at the 1st Annual Meeting of the ACM Special Interest Group on International Health Informatics (with proceedings). This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under award number 0705676. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    AARP. Healthy at Home. Retrieved from http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/healthy_home.pdf, (2008).
  2. 2.
    Acquisti, A., and Gross, R., Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Proceedings of the 6th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Workshop (PET). Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4258:36–58, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Administration on aging. Retrieved Mar 1, 2010. http://www.aoa.gov.
  4. 4.
    Ameen, M. A., Liu, J., and Kwak, K. Security and privacy issues in wireless sensor networks for healthcare applications. J. Med. Syst., 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beach, S., Schulz, R., Bruin, W., Downs, J., Musa, D., and Matthews, J., Privacy attitudes and quality of life technology in disabled and non-disabled baby boomers and older adults. Gerontologist 48(2):46, 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckwith, R., Designing for ubiquity: The perception of privacy. IEEE Pervasive 2(2):40–46, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellotti, V., Back, M., Edwards, W. K., Grinter, R. E., Henderson, A, and Lopes, C. Making sense of sensing systems: Five questions for designers and researchers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bishop, L. S., Holmes, B. J., and Kelley, C. M., National consumer health privacy survey. California HealthCare Foundation, Oakland, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blanson Henkemans, O. A., Caine, K. E, Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., Neerinex, M. A., and de Ruyter, B. Medical monitoring for independent living: user-centered design of smart home technologies for older adults. In Proceedings of the Med-e-Tel Conference for eHealth, Telemedicine and Health Information and Communication Technologies, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buhr, G. T., Kuchibhatia, M., and Clipp, E. C., Caregivers’ reasons for nursing home placement: Clues for improving discussions with families prior to the transition. Gerontologist 46(1):52–61, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cahill, E., Lewis, L. M., Barg, F. K., and Bogner, H. R., “You don’t want to burden them”: older adults’ views on family involvement in care. J. Fam. Nurs. 15(3):295–317, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caine, K. E. Visual sensing devices in home-care systems. In Proceedings of the Security and Privacy in Medical and Home Care Systems Workshop, 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Caine, K. E., Fisk, A. D., and Rogers, W. A. Benefits and privacy concerns of a home equipped with a visual sensing system: a perspective from older adults. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Caine, K. E., Fisk, A. D., and Rogers, W. A. Designing privacy conscious aware homes for older adults. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Computing Consortium Community. Information Technology Research Challenges for Healthcare: From Discovery to Delivery, 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Consolvo, S., Smith, I. E., Matthews, T., LaMarca, A.,Tabert, J., and Powledge, P. Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2005.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crowley, J., Coutaz, J., and Berard, F., Perceptual user interfaces: Things that see. Commun. ACM 43(3):54–56, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dawes, C., Phillips, C. D., Rose, M., Holan, S., and Sherman, M., A national survey of assisted living facilities. Gerontologist 43(6):875–882, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edwards,W. K., and Grinter, R. At home with ubiquitous computing: seven challenges. In Proceedings of the Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 2008.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ethical Technology in the Homes of Seniors. Retrieved Mar 1, 2010. http://ethos.indiana.edu.
  21. 21.
    Farzanfar, R., Finkelstein, J., and Friedman, R. H., Testing the usability of two automated home-based patient-management systems. J. Med. Syst. 28(2):143–153, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fisk, R. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., and Sharit, J., Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches, 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ganguli, M., Seaberg, E., Belle, S., Fischer, L., and Kuller, L. H., Cognitive impairment and the use of health services in an elderly rural population: the MoVIES project. Monongahela Valley elders survey. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 41(10):1065–1070, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guralnik, J. M., Alecxih, L., Branch, L. G., and Wiener, J. M., Medical and long-term care costs when older persons become more dependent. Am. J. Public Health 92(8):1244–1245, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kolodner, L., McCuan, E., and Levenson, J., Screening and supportive techniques for home dialysis in the treatment of renal failure. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 24(1):32–36, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumaraguru, P., and Cranor, L. Privacy indexes: a survey of Westin's studies. Institute for Software Research International (ISRI), Carnegie Mellon University, 2005. Retrieved June 1, 2010. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ponguru/CMU-ISRI-05-138.pdf.
  27. 27.
    Lederer, S., Mankoff, J., and Dey, A. K. Who wants to know what when? Privacy preference determinants in ubiquitous computing. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2003.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lorenzen-Huber, L., Boutain, M., Shankar, K., Camp, L. J., and Connelly, K. Privacy, independence, and relationships: older adults’ perceptions of home-based ubiquitous technologies. Ageing International, 2010.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mui, A., and Burnette, D., A comparative profile of frail elderly persons living alone and those living with others. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 21(3 & 4):5–26, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mutschler, P. H., The effects of income on home modification: can they afford to stay put? In: Lanspery, S., and Hyde, J. (Eds.), Staying Put: Adapting the Places Instead of the People. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc, Amityville, pp. 149–168, 1997.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Neustaedter, C., Greenberg, S., and Boyle, M., Blur filtration fails to preserve privacy for home-based video conferencing. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 13(1):1–36, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Olson, J. S., Grudin, J., and Horvitz, E. A study of preferences for sharing and privacy. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2005.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pynoos, J., and Regnier, V., Design directives in home adaptation. In: Lanspery, S., and Hyde, J. (Eds.), Staying Put: Adapting the Places Instead of the People. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc, Amityville, pp. 41–54, 1997.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ross, P. E. Managing care through the air. IEEE Spectrum (Dec. 2004), 26–31, 2004.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stead, W. W., and Lin, H. S. Computational technology for effective health care: Immediate steps and strategic directions. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009. Retrieved Mar 3, 2010. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/reports/comptech_prepub.pdf
  36. 36.
    Tang, P. C., Ash, J. S., Bates, D. W., Overhage, J. M., and Sands, D. Z., Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13(2):121–126, 2006.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tsai, J. Y., Kelley, P., Drielsma, P., Cranor, L. F., Hong, J., and Sadeh, N. Who’s viewed you? The impact of feedback in a mobile location-sharing application. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2009.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Warren, and Brandeis. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review. 1890.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zarsky, T. Z., Thinking outside the box: considering transparency, anonymity, and pseudonymity as overall solutions to the problems in information privacy in the internet society. Univ Miami Law Rev 58:991–1044, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© bbySpringer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly E. Caine
    • 1
    Email author
  • Celine Y. Zimmerman
    • 1
  • Zachary Schall-Zimmerman
    • 1
  • William R. Hazlewood
    • 1
  • L. Jean Camp
    • 1
  • Katherine H. Connelly
    • 1
  • Lesa L. Huber
    • 1
  • Kalpana Shankar
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Informatics and ComputingIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Information and Library ScienceUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations