International Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 261–266 | Cite as

Comparative investigation of remote tracking devices for aging care

  • M. W. Munir
  • N. Shahid
  • S. M. Omair
  • G. Munir
  • M. Z. Ul Haque
Original Research


Tracking devices help the elderly patients to remain safe, secure and traceable in case of getting lost or in an emergency. This research work was conducted to evaluate the appropriateness of few commercially available tracking devices for aging people, by identifying their usefulness, efficiency, limitations and further improvements. Research involved two steps; literature review about two existing tracking devices simply termed device A and device B, followed by a performance and comparative analysis of the aforementioned devices by applying basic statistics on the results obtained from a questionnaire survey. Devices were used by two groups of people: aging (>70 year old) and middle-aged patients (less than 70 years old) who reported their satisfaction levels about the said devices on a scale of one to five. These devices were found helpful in reducing the dependency of the elderly on others and raised their privacy values. However, these were not recommended for severe memory loss or later stage of critical staged dementia patients because learning and memorizing the process of handling these devices can be difficult for them. Overall, the performance of device B outplayed device A while comparing all considered device parameters. The calling feature of device B appeared to be an appealing characteristic with mean satisfaction levels of 4.9 ± 0.32 and 4.7 ± 0.48 as reported by the middle-aged and aging groups, respectively. These devices will be helpful in decreasing unnecessary rush at health care centers or lost person reporting in police. In upcoming years, these devices can be developed to remotely monitor the movement of the patient.


Aging care Tracking devices Remote monitoring Global position system (GPS) 



We are grateful to EPTEK ry, Seinäjoki, as they provided their GPS tracking devices for this research work. We are also thankful to Professor Kari Mäkelä and Mr. Sami Perälä for their guidance in this research work.


  1. 1.
    Older Americans 2016: Key Indicators of Well-Being (2016). Accessed 12 Feb 2017
  2. 2.
    Giacalone D, Wendin K, Kremer S, Frøst MB, Bredie WL, Olsson V, Otto MH, Skjoldborg S, Lindberg U, Risvik E (2016) Health and quality of life in an aging population–Food and beyond. Food Qual Prefer 31(47):166–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Memory diseases in Finland (2015). Accessed 15 Feb 2017
  4. 4.
    Sendra S, Granell E, Lloret J, Rodrigues JJ (2014) Smart collaborative mobile system for taking care of disabled and elderly people. Mob Netw Appl 19(3):287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosati RJ (2009) Evaluation of remote monitoring in home health care. In: International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine, IEEE, Cancun, pp 151–153. doi: 10.1109/eTELEMED.2009.48
  6. 6.
    Goroll AH, Simon SR, Tripathi M, Ascenzo C, Bates DW (2009) Community-wide implementation of health information technology: the Massachusetts ehealth collaborative experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc 16:132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chou CC, Chang CP, Lee TT, Chou HF, Mills ME (2013) Technology acceptance and quality of life of the elderly in a telecare program. CIN: Comput Inf Nurs 31(7):335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaplan B, Litewka S (2008) Ethical challenges of telemedicine and telehealth. Camb Q Healthc Eth 17:401–416Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tunick M (2009) Privacy in public places: do GPS and video surveillance provide plain views? Soc Theory Pract 35(4):597–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Landau R, Werner S, Auslander GK, Shoval N, Heinik J (2009) Attitudes of family and professional caregivers towards the use of GPS for tracking patients with dementia: an exploratory study. Br J Soc Work 39:670–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Global positioning system (2016). Accessed 15 Jan 2017
  12. 12.
    Noam S, Gail A, Kineret CS, Michal I, Ruth L, Jeremia H (2010) What can we learn about the mobility of the elderly in the GPS era? J Transp Geogr 18(5):603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milligan Christine, Roberts Celia, Mort Maggie (2011) Telecare and older people: who cares where? Soc Sci Med 72(3):347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rashidi P, Mihailidis A (2013) A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J Biomed Health Inf 17(3):579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Munir MW, Perälä S, Mäkelä K (2012) Utilization and impacts of GPS tracking in healthcare: a research study for elderly care. Int J Comput Appl 45(11):35–37Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Location data systems LDS oy (2015) Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  17. 17.
    GH4000 Handheld GNSS/GSM Tracker (2015). Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  18. 18.
    Allan R (2010) Medical devices get ready to make house calls. Electron Des 58(2):33–40Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landau R, Auslander GK, Werner S, Shoval N, Heinik J (2010) Families’ and professional caregivers’ views of using advanced technology to track people with dementia. Qual Health Res 20(3):409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mäkelä K (2010) Assessment of well-being technology at home. Int Hyvite Symp Wellbeing Technol 2010 4:10–12Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faucounau V, Riguet M, Orvoen G, Lacombe A, Rialle V, Extra J, Rigaud AS (2009) Electronic tracking system and wandering in Alzheimer’s disease: a case study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 52:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Munir MW, Mäkelä K, Perälä S (2010) Assessment of GPS tracking devices for elderly care. Int Hyvite Symp Wellbeing Technol 4:21Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    What is A-GPS? How does it work? (2013). Accessed 25 Jan 2017
  24. 24.
    Demiris G, Doorenbos AZ, Towle C (2009) Ethical considerations regarding the use of technology for older adults: the case of telehealth. Res Gerontol Nurs 2(2):128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hofmann B (2013) Ethical challenges with welfare technology: a review of the literature. Sci Eng Eth 19(2):389–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bharati Vidyapeeth's Institute of Computer Applications and Management 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringBarrett Hodgson UniversityKarachiPakistan
  2. 2.Biomedical Sciences and EngineeringTampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland
  3. 3.Biomedical Engineering DepartmentSir Syed University of Engineering and TechnologyKarachiPakistan

Personalised recommendations