Advertisement

Voices and Views of Informal Caregivers: Investigating Ambient Assisted Living Technologies

  • Christina Jaschinski
  • Somaya Ben Allouch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10217)

Abstract

Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) technologies are on the rise in an attempt to ensure the sustainability of elderly care. Informal caregivers are an important stakeholder group for the successful adoption of AAL technologies. However, the number of studies that specifically address the attitudes, concerns and needs of this group is limited. With the aim to engage this underrepresented user group and to highlight their opinion and needs, we conducted in-depth interviews with 20 informal caregivers to evaluate different AAL solutions in the field of mobility and safety. While informal caregivers recognized the safety and mobility benefits and the increased peace of mind – privacy issues, the lack of human touch and an unfelt need for support formed major barriers towards adoption. Informal caregivers have an important influence on care decisions and should be closely involved when developing AAL tools.

Keywords

Ambient Assisted Living Informal caregivers Technology adoption User needs 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Our gratitude goes to the research assistants F. Mokkink and M. Heideman who supported us in the data collection process. Furthermore, we want to thank all participants for sharing their insights with us.

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs: The 2015 Ageing Report - Economic and budgetary projections for the 28 EU Member States (2013–2060). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henz, U.: Informal caregiving at working age: effects of job characteristics and family configuration. J. Marriage Fam. 68, 411–429 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eckert, J.K., Morgan, L.A., Swamy, N.: Preferences for receipt of care among community-dwelling adults. J. Aging Soc. Policy 16, 49–65 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    House of Representatives of the Netherlands: Letter of the State Secretary for Health, Welfare and Sport, No. 65, 27401. The Hague, The Netherlands (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Klerk, M., de Boer, A., Kooiker, S., Schyns, P.: Unpaid help: who does what? The Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague, The Netherlands (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huber, M., Rodrigues, R., Hoffmann, F., Gąsior, K., Marin, B.: Facts and Figures on Long-Term Care: Europe and North America. European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, Vienna (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Timmermans, J.M.: Informal care: about the help of and help for informal caregivers. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague, The Netherlands (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, Y., Ngo, V., Park, S.Y.: Caring for caregivers: designing for integrality. In: CSCW 2013, pp. 91–102 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pinquart, M., Sörensen, S.: Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Aging 18(2), 250–267 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hussein, S., Manthorpe, J.: An international review of the long-term care workforce: policies and shortages. J. Aging Soc. Policy 17, 75–94 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van den Broek, G., Cavallo, F., Wehrmann, C.: AALIANCE - Ambient Assisted Living Roadmap. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aarts, E.H.L., Encarnação, J.L.: True Visions: The Emergence of Ambient Intelligence. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rashidi, P., Mihailidis, A.: A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 17, 579–590 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gabriel, Z., Bowling, A.: Quality of life from the perspectives of older people. Ageing Soc. 24, 675–691 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubenstein, L.Z.: Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing 35, 37–41 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers, M.E., Rogers, N.L., Takeshima, N., Islam, M.M.: Methods to assess and improve the physical parameters associated with fall risk in older adults. Prev. Med. (Balt.) 36, 255–264 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Demiris, G., Rantz, M., Aud, M., Marek, K., Tyrer, H., Skubic, M., Hussam, A.: Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: a pilot study. Med. Inform. Internet Med. 29, 87–94 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steele, R., Lo, A., Secombe, C., Wong, Y.K.: Elderly persons’ perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78, 788–801 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mahmood, A., Yamamoto, T., Lee, M., Steggell, C.: Perceptions and use of gerotechnology: implications for aging in place. J. Hous. Elder. 22, 104–126 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smarr, C.A., Mitzner, T.L., Beer, J.M., Prakash, A., Chen, T.L., Kemp, C.C., Rogers, W.A.: Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 6, 229–247 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bass, D.M., Noelker, L.S.: The influence of family caregivers on elder’s use of in-home services: an expanded conceptual framework. J. Health Soc. Behav. 28, 184–196 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Byrne, D., Goeree, M.S., Hiedemann, B., Stern, S.: Formal home health care, informal care, and family decision making. Int. Econ. Rev. 50, 1205–1242 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rowan, J., Mynatt, E.D.: Digital family portrait field trial: support for aging in place. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 521–530 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Consolvo, S., Roessler, P., Shelton, B.E: The CareNet display: lessons learned from an in home evaluation of an ambient display design of the CareNet display. In: Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 1–17. ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hwang, A.S., Truong, K.N., Mihailidis, A.: Using participatory design to determine the needs of informal caregivers for smart home user interfaces. In: Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, pp. 41–48. IEEE Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rialle, V., Ollivet, C., Guigui, C., Hervé, C.: What do family caregivers of Alzheimer’s disease patients desire in smart home technologies? Methods Inf. Med. 47, 63–69 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silverstone, R.L., Haddon, L.: Design and the domestication of ICTs: technical change and everyday life. In: Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies, pp. 44–74 (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryan, G.W., Bernard, H.R.: Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods 15, 85–109 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: The Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Hoof, J., Kort, H.S.M., Rutten, P.G.S., Duijnstee, M.S.H.: Ageing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: perspectives of older users. Int. J. Med. Inform. 80, 310–331 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bossen, C., Christensen, L.R., Groenvall, E., Vestergaard, L.S.: CareCoor: augmenting the coordination of cooperative home care work. Int. J. Med. Inform. 82, e189–e199 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Beringer, R., Sixsmith, A., Campo, M., Brown, J., McCloskey, R.: The “acceptance” of ambient assisted living: developing an alternate methodology to this limited research lens. In: Abdulrazak, B., Giroux, S., Bouchard, B., Pigot, H., Mokhtari, M. (eds.) ICOST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6719, pp. 161–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21535-3_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bright, A.K., Coventry, L.: Assistive technology for older adults. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments - PETRA 2013, pp. 1–4. ACM Press (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Coughlin, J., D’Ambrosio, L.A., Reimer, B., Pratt, M.R: Older adult perceptions of smart home technologies: implications for research, policy & market innovations in healthcare. In: 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 1810–1815 (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lorenzen-Huber, L., Boutain, M., Camp, L.J., Shankar, K., Connelly, K.H.: Privacy, technology, and aging: a proposed framework. Ageing Int. 36, 232–252 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cornejo, R., Tentori, M., Favela, J.: Ambient awareness to strengthen the family social network of older adults. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 22, 309–344 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lorenzen-Huber, L., Shankar, K., Caine, K., Connelly, K., Camp, L.J., Walker, B.A., Borrero, L.: How in-home technologies mediate caregiving relationships in later life. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 29, 441–455 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saxion University of Applied SciencesEnschedeNetherlands
  2. 2.University of TwenteEnschedeNetherlands

Personalised recommendations