A Survey Assessing Privacy Concerns of Smart-Home Services Provided to Individuals with Disabilities

  • Denys BrandEmail author
  • Florence D. DiGennaro Reed
  • Mariah D. Morley
  • Tyler G. Erath
  • Matthew D. Novak
Research Article


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.


Disabilities Privacy Smart homes Telecare Technology 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 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
  2. 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. Scholar
  3. Chung, J., Demiris, G., & Thompson, H. J. (2016). Ethical considerations regarding the use of smart home technologies for older adults: An integrative review. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 34, 155–181. Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Demiris, G., & Hensel, B. K. (2008). Technologies for an aging society: A systematic review of “smart home” applications. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 17, 33–40. Scholar
  6. DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Reed, D. D. (2013). HomeLink support technologies at community living opportunities. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 6, 80–81. Scholar
  7. DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Strouse, M. C., Jenkins, S. R., Price, J., Henley, A. J., & Hirst, J. M. (2014). Barriers to independent living for individuals with disabilities and seniors. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 7, 70–77. Scholar
  8. 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. Scholar
  9. Draper, H., & Sorell, T. (2012). Telecare, remote monitoring and care. Bioethics, 27, 365–372. Scholar
  10. Essen, A. (2008). The two facets of electronic care surveillance: An exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 128–136. Scholar
  11. Gerhardt, P. (2009). The current state of services for adults with autism. New York, NY: Organization for Autism Research.Google Scholar
  12. Guise, V., Anderson, J., & Wiig, S. (2014). Patient safety risks associated with telecare: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the literature. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 588–636. Scholar
  13. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, § 264, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996).Google Scholar
  14. Kraus, L. (2017). 2016 disability statistics annual report. Durham: University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  15. Mort, M., Roberts, C., Pols, J., Domenech, M., & Moser, I. (2015). Ethical implications of home telecare for older people: A framework derived from a multisited participative study. Health Expectations, 18, 438–449. Scholar
  16. 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. Scholar
  17. Powell, J., Gunn, L., Lowe, P., Sheehan, B., Griffiths, F., & Clarke, A. (2010). New networked technologies and carers of people with dementia: An interview study. Ageing and Society, 30, 1073–1088. Scholar
  18. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365. Scholar
  19. 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. Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Behavioral ScienceUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State University, SacramentoSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations