To Capture the Diverse Needs of Welfare Technology Stakeholders – Evaluation of a Value Matrix

  • Ella Kolkowska
  • Anneli Avatare Nöu
  • Marie Sjölinder
  • Isabella Scandurra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10298)


Welfare technology (WT) is often developed with a technical perspective, which does not involve important ethical considerations and different values that come up during the development and implementation of WT within elderly care. This paper presents a study where we have applied an ethical value matrix to support systematic ethical assessments of WT intended for personal health monitoring. The matrix consists of values in a checklist and a number of stakeholders and it is possible to analyze which values are emphasized by which stakeholders. The aim was to assess the matrix and find out how the matrix supports identification of values and interests that drive the various stakeholders in the development and implementation of WT. We have realized that several values specified by different actors as especially important were not included in the matrix and that the values in the matrix did not visualize or enable identification of value conflicts.


Ethics Elderly Welfare technology Stakeholders Values 


  1. 1.
    Sponselee, A.-m., Schouten, B., Bouwhuis, D., Willems, C.: Smart home technology for the elderly: perceptions of multidisciplinary stakeholders. In: Mühlhäuser, M., Ferscha, A., Aitenbichler, E. (eds.) AmI 2007. CCIS, vol. 11, pp. 314–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85379-4_37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P.H.: Human Values, Ethics, and Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palm, E., Nordgren, A., Verweij, M., Collste, G.: Ethically sound technology? Guidelines for interactive ethical assessment of personal health monitoring. In: Schmidt, S., Rienhoff, O. (eds.) Interdisciplinary Assessment of Personal Health Monitoring, pp. 105–114. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nordgren, A.: Personal health monitoring: ethical considerations for stakeholders. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 11, 156–173 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, L., Stroulia, E., Nikolaidis, I., Miguel-Cruz, A., Rincon, A.R.: Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inf. 91, 44–59 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beauchamp, T.L., Childress, J.F.: Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whitehouse, D., Duquenoy, P.: Applied ethics and eHealth: principles, identity, and RFID. In: Matyáš, V., Fischer-Hübner, S., Cvrček, D., Švenda, P. (eds.) Privacy and Identity 2008. IAICT, vol. 298, pp. 43–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collste, G.: Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues in Medical Informatics. IGI Global, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanson, J., Percival, J., Aldred, H., Brownsell, S., Hawley, M.: Attitudes to telecare among older people, professional care workers and informal carers: a preventative strategy or crisis management? Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 6, 193–205 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Essén, A.: The two facets of electronic care surveillance: an exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices. Soc. Sci. Med. 67, 128–136 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrefors, C., Axelsson, K., Savenstedt, S.: Using assistive technology services at differing levels of care: healthy older couples’ perceptions. J. Adv. Nurs. 66, 1523–1532 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marzegalli, M., Lunati, M., Landolina, M., Perego, G.B., Ricci, R.P., Guenzati, G., Schirru, M., Belvito, C., Brambilla, R., Masella, C., Di Stasi, F., Valsecchi, S., Santini, M.: Remote monitoring of CRT-ICD: the multicenter Italian carelink evaluation - ease of use, acceptance, and organizational implications. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 13, 1259–1264 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charness, N., Fox, M., Papadopoulos, A., Crump, C.: Metrics for assessing the reliability of a telemedicine remote monitoring system. Telemed. J. e-Health 19, 487–492 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gillon, R.: Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ 309, 184–188 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Myers, M.D.: Qualitative Research in Business & Management. Sage Publications, London (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sjölinder, M., Avatare Nöu, A.: Indoor and outdoor social alarms: understanding users’ perspectives. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2, e9 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kolkowska, E., Avatare Nöu, A., Sjölinder, M., Scandurra, I.: Socio-technical challenges in implementation of monitoring technologies in elderly care. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) ITAP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9755, pp. 45–56. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39949-2_5 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kolkowska, E., Kajtazi, M.: Privacy dimensions in design of smart home system for elderly people. In: AIS SIGSEC Workshop on Information Security & Privacy, 13 December 2015, Fort Worth, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolkowska, E.: Understanding privacy in smart homes systems used in elderly care. In: European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2016 (EMCIS2016), 23–24 June 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N., Rook, D.W.: Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. 2. uppl. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ella Kolkowska
    • 1
  • Anneli Avatare Nöu
    • 2
  • Marie Sjölinder
    • 2
  • Isabella Scandurra
    • 1
  1. 1.Örebro University School of BusinessÖrebroSweden
  2. 2.SICS Swedish ICTKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations