Advertisement

When Your Living Space Knows What You Do: Acceptance of Medical Home Monitoring by Different Technologies

  • Martina Ziefle
  • Simon Himmel
  • Wiktoria Wilkowska
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7058)

Abstract

Technology acceptance of conventional Information and Communication technologies (ICT) devices is extensively researched within the last twenty years. However, comparably small knowledge is prevalent with respect to ubiquitous ICT in the living environment. Furthermore, there is nearly no data about user acceptance’s dependency of integrated technologies on varying domestic spaces and how acceptance varies regarding user diversity. This study explores the acceptance of home-integrated ICT (hands-free equipment, camera, positioning system). In different domestic spaces (living room, bedroom, bathroom) acceptance for integrated technology was assessed, using qualitative as well as quantitative methods. Results show that users’ acceptance differs considerably depending on the room type (acceptance is the highest in the living and the lowest in the bathroom). Moreover, the most disliked technology for home monitoring are camera-based systems, followed by the positioning system and the microphone. Also, there was a significant interacting effect of room type and technology: While none of these technologies is accepted for the bathroom, the living room is less sensitive to their presence with the microphone as the most accepted technology. User diversity does not play a major role hinting at generic acceptance patterns regarding ICT integrated in home environments.

Keywords

Domestic Spaces Technology Acceptance Room cartography Ambient Assisted Living Ubiquitous Computing User Diversity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Leonhardt, S.: Personal Healthcare Devices. In: Mekherjee, S., et al. (eds.) Malware, Hardware Technology Drivers of AI, pp. 349–370. Springer, Dordrecht (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Different Perspectives on Technology Acceptance: The Role of Technology Type and Age. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 20–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers, Y.: The Changing Face of Human-Computer Interaction in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 1–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stronge, A.J., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D.: Human factors considerations in implementing telemedicine systems to accommodate older adults. Telemedicine & Telecare 13, 1–3 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reding, V.: Foreword. In: Roe, P.R.W. (ed.) Towards an Inclusive Future Impact and Wider Potential of Information and Communication Technologies. COST, Brussels, Belgium, pp. i–ii (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heinze, R.G.: Tele-Monitoring@Home. Optionen und Realitäten eines, dritten“ Gesundheitsstandortes. In: Proceedings of the Second German Congress on Ambient Assisted Living. VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmitt, J.M.: Innovative medical technologies help ensure improved patient care and cost-effectiveness. International Journal of Medical Marketing 2(2), 17–178 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curry, R., Trejo-Tinoco, M., Wardle, D.: The use of information and communication technology to support independent living for older and disabled people. Department of Health, London (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Junestrand, S., Tollmar, K.: Video Mediated Communication for Domestic Environments: Architectural and Technological Design. In: Streitz, N.A., et al. (eds.) CoBuild 1999. LNCS, vol. 1670, pp. 177–190. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lalou, S.: Identity, Social Status, Privacy and Face-keeping in the Digital Society. Journal of Social Science Information 47(3), 299–330 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Necheles, T.: Standards of Medical Care: How Does an Innovative Medical Procedure Become Accepted. Medicine & Health Care 10(1), 15–18 (1982)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ziefle, M., Wilkowska, W.: Technology acceptability for medical assistance. Full paper at the 4th ICST Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare 2010, pp. 1–9 (2010), doi 10.4108/ICST.PERVASIVEHEALTH2010.8859.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zimmer, Z., Chappell, N.: Receptivity to New Technology among Older Adults. Disability and Rehabilitation 21(5/6), 2–230 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaehn, J., Nagel, K.: e-Health. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aarts, E., Harwig, R., Schuurmans, M.: Ambient Intelligence. In: Denning, P. (Hrsg.) The Invisible Future. The Seamless Integration of Technology into Everyday Life. McGraw-Hill Professional, Lansing (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holzinger, A., Schaupp, K., Eder-Halbedl, W.: An Investigation on Acceptance of Ubiquitous Devices for the Elderly in a Geriatric Hospital Environment: Using the Example of Person Tracking. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5105, pp. 22–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eloy, S., Plácido, I., Duarte, J.P.: Housing and information society: integration of ICT in the existing housing stock. In: Braganca, et al. (eds.) SB 2007, Suistainable Construction, Materials, Practices, Portugal. IOS Press (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eloy, S., Plácido, I., Duarte, J.: Integration of Information, Communication and Automation technologies in Housing Rehabilitation. XXXVII IAHS. In: World Congress on Housing, Santander, Spain, October 26-29 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee, M.: Embedded Assessment of Wellness with Smart Home Sensors. In: UbiComp 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 26-29 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nikolaus, T.: Gait, Balance and Falls - Reasons and Consequences. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 130(15), 958–960 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Ruyter, B., Pelgrim, E.: Ambient Assisted-Living Research in CareLab. ACM Interactions 14(4), 3–33 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lüder, M., Salomon, R., Bieber, G.: StairMaster: A New Online Fall Detection Device. In: 2ndCongress for Ambient Assisted Living, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mann, S.: Smart Clothing: The Wearable Computer and WearCam. Personal Technologies 1(1) (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haines, W.D., Vernon, J.R., Dannenberg, R.B., Driessen, P.F.: Placement of Sound Sources in the Stereo Field Using Measured Room Impulse Responses. In: Kronland-Martinet, R., Ystad, S., Jensen, K. (eds.) CMMR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4969, pp. 276–287. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khan, S.M., Shah, M.: A Multiview Approach to Tracking People in Crowded Scenes using a Planar Homography Constraint. In: Leonardis, A., Bischof, H., Pinz, A. (eds.) ECCV 2006, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 3954, pp. 133–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kourogi, M., Kurata, T.: Personal Positioning based on Walking Locomotion analysis with Self-Contained Sensors and a wearable camera. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klack, L., et al.: Future Care Floor: A Sensitive Floor for Movement Monitoring and Fall Detection in Home Environments. In: Lin, J.C., Nikita, K.S. (eds.) Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare (pp, pp. 211–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leusmann, P., Möllering, C., Klack, L., Kasugai, K., Ziefle, M., Rumpe, B.: Your Floor Knows Where You Are: Sensing and Acquisition of Movement Data. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Managing Health Information in Mobile Applications (HIMoA 2011), IEEE 12th International Conference on Mobile Data Management (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences 39, 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arning, K., Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: “Same Same but Different” How Service Contexts of Mobile Technologies Shape Usage Motives and Barriers. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 34–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart Home Technologies: Insights into Generation-Specific Acceptance Motives. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) USAB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5889, pp. 312–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilkowska, W., Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: A Small but Significant Difference – The Role of Gender on Acceptance of Medical Assistive Technologies. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 82–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: User diversity as a challenge for the integration of medical technology into future home environments. In: Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Human-Centred Design of eHealth Technologies. Concepts, Methods and Applications, pp. 95–126. IGI Global, Hershey (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bell, G., Dourish, P.: Back to the shed. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11(5), 373–381 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stewart, J.: The social consumption of ICTs: insights from research on the appropriation and consumption of new ICTs in the domestic environment. RCSS, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leonardi, C., Mennecozzi, C., et al.: Knocking on elders’ door: investigating the functional and emotional geography of their domestic space. In: Proceedings of OZCHI 2009, pp. 1703–1712. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Hemmings, T., Benford, S.: Finding a Place for Ubicomp in the Home. In: Dey, A.K., Schmidt, A., McCarthy, J.F. (eds.) UbiComp 2003. LNCS, vol. 2864, pp. 208–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dethloff, C.: Akzeptanz und Nicht-Akzeptanz von technischen Produktinnovationen (Acceptance and not-Acceptance of technical product innovations). Pabst Science Publishers (Beiträge zur Wirtschaftspsychologie; 6), Lengerich (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilhem, H.-J.: Das Alter - ein neuer Lebensabschnitt entsteht. Pr-Internet, HPS-Medienverlag (November 2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marquis-Faulkes, F., McKenna, S.J., Newell, A.F., Gregor, P.: Gathering the requirements for a fall monitor using drama and video with older people. Technology and Disability 17, 227–236 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  • Simon Himmel
    • 1
  • Wiktoria Wilkowska
    • 1
  1. 1.Communication ScienceRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations