A Survey Assessing Privacy Concerns of Smart-Home Services Provided to Individuals with Disabilities
Privacy has been identified as a primary concern among stakeholders (i.e., service recipients, advocates, administrators, family) when using technology to provide residential services to individuals in need. This paper summarizes a study that distributed a survey to agencies that provide services (e.g., clinical, recreational) and resources (e.g., advocacy groups) to people with various types of disabilities (e.g., physical, sensory, intellectual, developmental) across the United States. The results led to several recommendations about how smart-home service providers can use technology in a way that promotes client privacy. In addition, we make several suggestions for how remote staff (i.e., individuals monitoring the information gathered by technology) can assist in the process of ensuring client privacy.
KeywordsDisabilities Privacy Smart homes Telecare Technology
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Braddock, D., Hemp, R., Rizzolo, M. C., Tanis, E. S., Haffer, L., Lulinski, A., & Wu, J. (2013). State of the states in developmental disabilities 2013: The great recession and its aftermath. Boulder: Department of Psychiatry and Coleman Institute, University of Colorado, and Department of Disability and Human Development, University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
- Brewer, J. L., Taber-Doughty, T., & Kubik, S. (2010). Safety assessment of a home-based telecare system for adults with developmental disabilities in Indiana: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 16, 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1258/jtt.2010.090902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Dorsten, A., Sifford, K. S., Bharucha, A., Mecca, L. P., & Wactlar, H. (2009). Ethical perspective on emerging assistive technologies: Insights from focus groups with stakeholders in long-term care facilities. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 4, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2009.4.1.25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gerhardt, P. (2009). The current state of services for adults with autism. New York, NY: Organization for Autism Research.Google Scholar
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, § 264, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996).Google Scholar
- Kraus, L. (2017). 2016 disability statistics annual report. Durham: University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
- Niemeijer, A. R., Depla, M. F. I. A., Frederiks, B. J. M., & Hertogh, C. M. P. M. (2015). The experience of people with dementia and intellectual disabilities with surveillance technologies in residential care. Nursing Ethics, 22, 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733014533237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M., & Himmel, S. (2015). Perceptions of personal privacy in smart home technologies: Do user assessments vary depending on the research method? In T. Tryfonas & I. Askoxylakis (Eds.), Human aspects of information security, privacy, and trust (pp. 592–603). Cambridge, UK: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20376-8_53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar