How to Handle Data Management of Assisting Lifelogging Technologies from a User’s Point of View

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12208)


A shift to higher proportions of older people and people in need of care requires new solutions and technologies with the potential to assist people in their everyday activities and to support them in being as independent and self-determined as possible. Lifelogging technologies have this potential by the collection, storage, and evaluation of personal data. Despite their potential, the users’ acceptance of such technologies is of great importance, in particular with regard to the technology’s handling of data security and privacy. For this reason, a quantitative study was carried out using an online questionnaire (N = 182), investigating two different application contexts of lifelogging technologies: a preventive context (frailty monitoring) and an assisting context related to patients suffering from dementia. Based on a preceding qualitative study, data access, purpose of data processing, duration as well as location of data storage were chosen as factors which were investigated, applying a conjoint analysis approach. The results revealed that the purpose of data processing and data access were the most decisive factors when users decide about the data management of lifelogging technologies and comparing the two contexts, contradicting decision patterns were found in particular for data access. Beyond these insights, user group specific decision patterns were identified for each of the application contexts. This study provides relevant insights into the users’ perspectives and requirements with regard to data management of lifelogging technologies, which should be taken into account for technology development and communication.


Data handling Data management Privacy Data security Data storage User perception Acceptance Lifelogging technology 



The authors would like to thank all participants for sharing their opinions on assisting lifelogging technologies. Further, thanks go to Katharina Merkel for research support. This work resulted from the project PAAL – “Privacy Aware and Acceptable Lifelogging services for older and frail people” and was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (16SV7955).


  1. 1.
    Börsch-Supan, A., Bucher-Koenen, T., Coppola, M., Lamla, B.: Savings in times of demographic change: lessons from the german experience. J. Econ. Surv. 29, 807–829 (2015). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fekete, A.: Social vulnerability change assessment: monitoring longitudinal demographic indicators of disaster risk in Germany from 2005 to 2015. Nat. Hazard 95, 585–614 (2019). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haustein, T., Mischke, J., Schönfeld, F., Willand, I.: Older people in germany and the EU. Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden, Germany, February 2016Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greve, B.: Long-term Care for the Elderly in Europe: Development and Prospects. Taylor & Francis, Routledge (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouma, H., Fozard, J.L., Bouwhuis, D.G., Taipale, V.: Gerontechnology in perspective. Gerontechnology 6, 190–216 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rashidi, P., Mihailidis, A.: A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf. 17, 579–590 (2012). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Selke, S.: Lifelogging: Digital Self-tracking and Lifelogging-Between Disruptive Technology and Cultural Transformation. Springer, Wiesbaden (2016). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gurrin, C., Smeaton, A.F., Doherty, A.R.: Lifelogging: personal big data. Found. Trends® Inf. Retrieval 8, 1–125 (2014). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mubashir, M., Shao, L., Seed, L.: A survey on fall detection: principles and approaches. Neurocomputing 100, 144–152 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ernsting, C., et al.: Using smartphones and health apps to change and manage health behaviors: a population-based survey. J. Med. Internet Res. 19(4), e101 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gövercin, M., et al.: Smartsenior@ home: acceptance of an integrated ambient assisted living system. results of a clinical field trial in 35 households. Inf. Health Soc. Care 41, 430–447 (2016). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wild, K., Boise, L., Lundell, J., Foucek, A.: Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of cognitive and physical health: reactions and perceptions of older adults. J. Appl. Gerontol. 27(2), 181–200 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lorenzen-Huber, L., Boutain, M., Camp, L.J., Shankar, K., Connelly, K.H.: Privacy, technology, and aging: a proposed framework. Ageing Int. 36(2), 232–252 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peek, S.T., Wouters, E.J., Van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K.G., Boeije, H.R., Vrijhoef, H.J.: Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inf. 83, 235–248 (2014). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Padilla-Lopez, J., Chaaraoui, A., Gu, F., Florez-Revuelta, F.: Visual privacy by context: proposal and evaluation of a level-based visualisation scheme. Sensors 15, 12959–12982 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferdous, M.S., Chowdhury, S., Jose, J.M.: Analysing privacy in visual lifelogging. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 40, 430–449 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gelonch, O., et al.: Acceptability of a lifelogging wearable camera in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a mixed-method study. BMC Geriatr. 19(1), 110 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bélanger, F., Crossler, R.E.: Privacy in the digital age: a review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Q. 35(4), 1017–1042 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Voigt, P., von dem Bussche, A.: The Eu General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A Practical Guide, 1st edn. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steggell, C.D., Hooker, K., Bowman, S., Choun, S., Kim, S.J.: The role of technology for healthy aging among Korean and Hispanic women in the United States: a pilot study. Gerontechnology 9, 433–449 (2010). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joe, J., Chaudhuri, S., Chung, J., Thompson, H., Demiris, G.: Older adults’ attitudes and preferences regarding a multifunctional wellness tool: a pilot study. Inf. Health Soc. Care 41, 143–158 (2016). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luce, R.D., Tukey, J.W.: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1(1), 1–27 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Green, P.E., Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J. Consum. Res. 5(2), 103–123 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arning, K.: Conjoint measurement. In: Matthes, J., Davis, C.S., Potter, R.F. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, pp. 1–10. Wiley-Blackwell, Wiley (2017).
  25. 25.
    Rao, V.R.: Applied Conjoint Analysis, 1st edn. Springer, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orme, B.: Interpreting the Results of Conjoint Analysis, Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. pp. 77–89, Research Publications LLC, Madison (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sawtooth Software: The CBC System for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. Technical Paper Series (2009).
  28. 28.
    Sawtooth Software. Survey Software & Conjoint Analysis—CBC Latent Class Technical Paper. Sawtooth Technical Paper Series (2014). https://www.sawtoothsoftwarecom/support/technical-papers/sawtooth-software-products/cbc-latent-class-technical-paper-2004
  29. 29.
    Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M.: Segmenting markets with conjoint analysis. J. Mark. 55, 20–31 (1991). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sawtooth Software: Testing the CBC Design. Technical Paper Series (2019).
  31. 31.
    Holmberg, M., Valmari, G., Lundgren, S.M.: Patient’ experiences of homecare nursing: balancing the duality between obtaining care and to maintain dignity and self-determination. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 26(4), 705–712 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lai, C.K., Chung, J.C., Leung, N.K., Wong, J.C., Mak, D.P.: A survey of older Hong Kong people’s perceptions of telecommunication technologies and telecare devices. J. Telemed. Telecare 16, 441–446 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zimmer, Z., Chappell, N.L.: Receptivity to new technology among older adults. Disabil. Rehabil. 21, 222–230 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1980)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Green, P.E., Krieger, A.M., Agarwal, M.K.: Adaptive conjoint analysis: some caveats and suggestions. J. Mark. Res. 28, 215–222 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction Center, RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations