Supporting Informal Carers’ Independency Through Coordinated Care

  • Aparecido Fabiano Pinatti de CarvalhoEmail author
  • Hilda Tellioğlu
  • Susanne Hensely-Schinkinger
  • Michael Habiger
Conference paper


Dependency research in informal care has a long history. Studies within this area usually focus on the dependencies that care receivers have in relation to those providing the care: the informal carers. They usually take for granted the dependencies that informal care brings upon the carers. This paper draws attention to these important (unpaid) workers of our current society and discusses how engaging in caring can constrain one of their most valued personal attribute: their independency. Not only that, the paper discusses how coordinated care can come to the rescue of some of this independency, introducing a few simple but yet effective ICT solutions that can create opportunities for it. The findings presented in this paper come from rich ethnographic data collected within TOPIC, a European AAL joint project conducted across Austria, France and Germany. Finally, we show our research framework in the setting of informal care with the complexity and dimensions in human and non-human supported caring activities.


Informal Carer Care Situation Temporal Coordination Care Receiver Collaborative Application 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We would like to thank the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme for financial support, the members of the TOPIC consortium for the insights and input in the project development, and all the informal carers participating in the project without whom this research would not be possible.


  1. 1.
    Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, van de Berg B, Dinant HJ, Koopmanschap MA, van den Bos GAM (2004) Burden of caregiving: evidence of objective burden, subjective burden, and quality of life impacts on informal caregivers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 51(4):570–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cranswick K, Dosman D (2008) Eldercare: what we know today. Can Soc Trends 86:10Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilkin D (1987) Conceptual problems in dependency research. Soc Sci Med 24(10):867–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fraser N, Gordon LCFW (1994) A genealogy of dependency: tracing a keyword of the U.S. welfare state. Signs 19(2):309–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kittay EF (2005) Dependency, difference and the global ethic of longterm care. J Polit Philos 13(4):443–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saraceno C (2010) Social inequalities in facing old-age dependency: a bi-gerational perspective. J Eur Soc Policy 20(32):32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine M, Glendinning C (2005) Dependence, independence or inter-dependence? Revisiting the concepts of ‘Care’ and ‘Dependency’. Aging Soc 25(2005):601–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tellioğlu H, Hensely-Schinkinger S, de Carvalho AFP (2015) Modes of independece while informal caregiving. In: Proceedings of the 13th AAATE conference, Budapest, 9–12 SeptGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bossen C, Christensen LR, Grönvall E, Vestergaard LS (2013) CareCoor: augmenting the coordination of cooperative home care work. Int J Med Inform 82(5):e189–e199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breskovic I, de Carvalho AFP, Schinkinger S, Tellioğlu H (2013) Social awareness support for meeting informal carers’ needs: early development in TOPIC. In: Adjunct proceedings of the 13th European conference on computer supported cooperative work (ECSCW 2013), Paphos. Department of Computer Science Aarhus University, Aarhus, 3–8Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hensely-Schinkinger S, de Carvalho AFP, Glanzinig M, Tellioğlu H (2015) The definition and use of personas in the design of technologies for informal caregivers. In: HCI International, Los Angeles, 2–7 AugGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J (2006) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, 2nd edn. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arno PS, Levine C, Memmott MM (1999) The economic value of informal caregiving. Health Aff 18(2):182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van den Berg B, Brouwer W, Exel J, Koopmanschap M (2005) Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving. Health Econ 14(2):169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibson WJ, Brown A (2009) Working with qualitative data. Sage, Los Angeles, 222 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bryman A (2008) Social research methods, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, 800 pGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brownsell S, Blackburn S, Hawley M (2012) User requirements for an ICT-based system to provide care. Support and information access for older people in the community. J Assist Technol 6(1):5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kittay EF (1999) Love’s labor: essays on women, equality, and dependency. Routledge, New York, 257 pGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manthorpe J (2001) Caring at a distance: learning and practice issues. Soc Work Educ 20(5):593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shakespeare T (2000) The social relations of care. In: Lewis G, Gewirtz S, Clarke J (eds) Rethinking social policy. Sage, London, pp 52–65Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Christensen L, Grönvall E (2011) Challenges and opportunities for collaborative technologies for home care work. In: Bødker S, et al (eds) ECSCW 2011: proceedings of the 12th European conference on computer supported cooperative work, 24–28 Sept 2011. Aarhus Denmark. Springer, London. p 61–80Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nies H (2004) A European research agenda or integrated care for older people. 24 pGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Torp S, Bing-Jonsson PC, Hanson E (2013) Experiences with using information and communication technology to build a multi-municipal support network for informal carers. Inform Health Soc Care 38(3):265–279. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2012.735733 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kraner M, Emery D, Cvetkovic SR, Procter P, Smythe CS (1999) Information and communication systems for the assistance of carers based on ACTION. Inform Health Soc Care 24(4):233–248Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schulz R, Beach SR (1999) Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the carer health effects study. J Am Med Assoc 282:2215–2219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tellioğlu H (2010) Coordination 2.0. Using web-based technologies for coordination support. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on web intelligence and virtual enterprises 2 (WIVE 2010), Saint-Etienne, 11–13 OctGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tellioğlu H (2010) Coordination of work: towards a typology. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computer systems and technologies, (CompSysTech’10), Sofia, 17–18 Jun, 311–316Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cadiz JJ, Gupta A, Grudin J (2000) Using web annotations for asynchronous collaboration around documents. In: Proceedings of CSCW’00. Philadelphia, 2–6 Dec, pp 309–318Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carstensen PH, Nielsen M (2001) Characterizing modes of coordination. In: Proceedings of GROUP’01. Boulder, 30 Sep–3 Oct, pp 81–90Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schinkinger S, de Carvalho AFP, Breskovic I, Tellioğlu H (2014) Exploring social support needs of informal caregivers. In: CSCW 2014 workshop on collaboration and coordination in the context of informal care (CCCiC 2014), Baltimore, 15 Feb 2014. TU-Wien. pp 29–37Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Palen L (1999) Social, individual and technological issues for groupware calendar systems. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Pittsburgh. ACM, pp 17–24Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bardram JE (2000) Temporal coordination – on time and coordination of collaborative activities at a surgical department. Comput Supported Coop Work 9(2):157–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aparecido Fabiano Pinatti de Carvalho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hilda Tellioğlu
    • 1
  • Susanne Hensely-Schinkinger
    • 1
  • Michael Habiger
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Design and Assessment of Technology, Multidisciplinary Design GroupVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations