Advertisement

Transcendent Technology and Mobile eHealth

  • Charles Musselwhite
  • Shannon Freeman
  • Hannah R. Marston
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

Technology is becoming a common place in the lives of all of us, the potential for it to help deliver health and social care is exciting. However, the full potential of this won’t be recognised if there is a failure to understand how such technology is interwoven within our daily lives. It must be remembered not everyone can interact with technology in the same way. Yet technology is often developed around the lives of the imagined average citizen, meaning many people can be disadvantaged by not having technology fit their into lives. Systems are still designed to help others in a rather paternalistic fashion. Therefore more needs to be done to involve the end users of the technology in the design of technology such as mobile ehealth (mhealth) and move towards a bottom up transcendent rather than technocratic approach to technology. In addition, there should be more space for understanding how technology, such as mhealth, can change society, examining how it challenges moral dilemmas and ethics. Regulation is important when developing new technology, but it needs to cover changes in practice not just the technology itself. Mobile ehealth also effects many current debates in the lives of older people and those in marginalised groups of society, including challenging systems of health and social care but also housing, transport and economics. More research is needed in the area of mhealth but the research must continue to be multi-disciplinary and fully involve stakeholders and end-users for full potential to be realised.

References

  1. Ashton B, Girard R (2013) Reducing the digital divide in Manitoba: a proposed framework. J Rural Community Dev 8(2):62–78Google Scholar
  2. Cotten SR, Anderson WA, McCullough BM (2013) Impact of internet use on loneliness and contact with others among older adults: cross-sectional analysis. J Med Internet Res 15:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission: Information Society and Media (2007) Ageing society i2010: independent living for the ageing society. European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  4. Lindsay S, Smith S, Bellaby P (2007) The impact of ICT on family: views from an older generation. In: Family and communication technology workshop. Retrieved from https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/static/5007/2008pdf/fact_impactfamily.pdf Google Scholar
  5. Marston HR, Graner-Ray S (2016) Older women on the game: understanding digital game perspetives from an ageing cohort. In: Nierling L, Dominguez Rue E (eds) Ageing and technology: perspectives from the social sciences. Transcript-Verlag, Bielefeld, pp 67–92Google Scholar
  6. Marston HR, Woodbury A, Kroll M, Fink D, Eichberg S, Gschwind YJ, Delbaere K (2015) The design of a purpose built Exergame for fall prediction and prevention amongst older adults. Eur Rev Aging Phys Activity (EURAPA) 12:13. doi: 10.1186/s11556-015-0157-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Marston HR, Freeman S, Bishop AK, Beech CL (2016) Utilization of digital games for older adults aged 85+ years: a scoping review. Games Health J 5(3):157–174. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2015.0087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Silverstein M, Giarrusso R (2010) Aging and family life: a decade review. J Marriage Fam 72(5):1039–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00749.x

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Musselwhite
    • 1
  • Shannon Freeman
    • 2
  • Hannah R. Marston
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Innovative Ageing, School of Human and Health SciencesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK
  2. 2.School of NursingUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  3. 3.Health & Wellbeing Priority Research Area, School of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, Faculty of Wellbeing, Education & Language StudiesThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations