Advertisement

Can Quantified Self Be a Facilitating Technology to Help Older Adults Stay Longer in Their Home?

  • Christel De Maeyer
Chapter
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)

Abstract

Readers of this chapter are taken through a journey by the author, who narrates a real-life story of a lady called Maria who is 75-year old and lives with her husband Albert, 81-years. The narration describes the lives of Maria and Albert, detailing their enjoyment of physical activity, and their children. Yet, one-day Maria is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and through the narration the author describes the experience that Maria and her family experience. Fast forwarding, to the year 2030, the author continues her narration describing how technology may fit into Maria’s life and that of her family; including the use of wearable devices and sensors integrated into the home where Maria lives, and enabling her family to track in real-time Maria’s sleep patterns and overall health. Additionally, this chapter discusses the fields of ageing in place, the quantified self (QS), and based on existing work in this field, the author explores a taxonomy for the QS, referencing and drawing on the work of Deborah Lupton. Further exploration and discussion in the areas of appropriation, affordance, rights, and risks of QS are provided with the author exploring how digital technologies fit within the healthcare system.

Keywords

Quantified self Fall detection Surveillance Sensors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to dedicate this chapter to my mom who died in 2016 with severe Alzheimer’s disease. I used BodyMedia technology to monitor how she was sleeping and how much physical activity she was undertaking. Unfortunately, the latter was not working well, since she was not really making steps but more shuffled on her feet across the floor, and the system counted distinctive toe strikes to measure steps.

References

  1. Allen A (2017) Will grandma want a robot seal? Retrieved from Politico: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/01/technology-healthcare-advances-for-the-elderly-000268
  2. Altus DM (2000) Evaluating an electronic monitoring system for people who wander. J Alzheimer’s Dis Other Dementia’s 15:121–125Google Scholar
  3. Andrejevic M (2014) The big data divide. Int J Commun 8:1673–1689Google Scholar
  4. Arning KZ (2015) Get that camera out of my house!” Conjoint measurement of preferences for video-based healthcare monitoring systems in private and public places. ICOST 2015, pp 152–164Google Scholar
  5. Ballinger CP (2002) The construction of the risk of falling among and by older people. Ageing Soc 22:305–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickmore TW (2003) Relational agents: effecting change through human-computer relationships. PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, program in media arts and sciences, School of Architecture and Planning, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Birnholtz JM-R (2010) Independence and interaction: understanding seniors’ privacy and awareness needs for aging in place. CHI2010, Atlanta, GA, USA. ACM, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  8. Brauner PZ (2014). Exergames for Elderly in Ambient Assisted Living Environments. International Conference on Pervasive Games – PERGAMES. Springer, Berlin/HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  9. Brittain K, Corner L, Robinson L, Bond J (2010) Ageing in place and technologies of place: the lived experience of people with dementia in changing social, physical and technological environments. Sociology of Health & Illness 32:272–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01203.
  10. Campbell AJ, Robertson CM (2003) Otago exercise program to prevent falls in older adults. Otago Medical School, OtagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Choe EE (2014) Understanding quantified-Selfers’ practices in collecting and exploring personal data. CHI 2014. ACM, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  12. Coventry PA (2014) Capacity, responsibility, and motivation: a critical qualitative evaluation of patient and practitioner views about barriers to self-management in people with multimorbidity. BMC Health Services ResearchGoogle Scholar
  13. Dadlani PS (2010) Aurama: caregiver awareness for living independently with an augmented picture frame display. AI & Soc 25(2):235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davey JN (2004) Accommodation options for older people in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Institute for Research on Ageing/Business & Economic Research Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Demiris GH (2008) Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24(1):120–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demiris G, Oliver D (2008) Use of videophones for distant caregiving: an enriching experience for families and residents in long-term care. J Gerontol Nurs 34(7):50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ducatel KB-C (2001) Scenarios For Ambient Intelligence In 2010. European Commission, user friendly information society. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  18. Endeavour Partners (2014). Inside wearables. How the science of human behavior change offers the secret to long-term engagement. © 2014 Endeavour Partners LLCGoogle Scholar
  19. Epstein DP (2015) A lived informatics model of personal informatics. UbiComp’15, September 07–11, 2015, Osaka, Japan. ACM, OsakaGoogle Scholar
  20. Epstein (2016) Beyond abandonment to next steps: understanding and designing for life after personal informatics tool use. CHI’16, May 07–12, 2016, San Jose, CA, USA. ACM, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  21. European Commission (EGECFIN), a. t. (2012). The 2012 ageing report, economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU Member States (2010–2060). European Commission, DG ECFIN & AWG. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. Eurostat (2014) Eurostat T, EU statistics on regions and cities. Eurostat regional yearbook. In Eurstat regional yearbook (doi:10.2785/54659 ed.). Luxembourg: Publications O ce of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  23. Exleya CA (2007) A critical examination of home care: end of life care as an illustrative case. Soc Sci Med 65:2317–2327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fogg B (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. Persuasive’09. Clairmont: ACM ISBN 978-1-60558-376-1/09/04Google Scholar
  25. Fox SD (2013) Tracking for health. Pew Internet Research, Pew Internet ResearchGoogle Scholar
  26. Fried LT (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Med Sci 56(3):M146–M156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fritz TH (2014) Persuasive technology in the real world: a study of long-term use of activity sensing devices for fitness. CHI 2014, One of a CHInd. TorontoGoogle Scholar
  28. Geraedts HA (2014) Adherence to and effectiveness of an individually tailored home-based exercise program for frail older adults, driven by mobility monitoring: design of a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 14:570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Geraerdts HA (2017) A home-based exercise program driven by tablet application and mobility monitoring for frail older adults: feasibility and practical implications. Prev Chronic Dis 14(160227):E12Google Scholar
  30. Gobbens EA (2010) The Tilburg frailty indicator: psychometric properties. American Medical Directors AssociationGoogle Scholar
  31. Gschwind YJ et al (2014) ICT-based system to predict and prevent falls (iStoppFalls): study protocol for an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr 14:91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gschwind YJ et al (2015) ICT-based system to predict and prevent falls (iStoppFalls): results from an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act 12:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harcourt B (2015) Exposed. Havard University Press, Camebridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Himmel SZ (2016) Smart home medical technologies: users’ requirements for conditional acceptance. i-com 15(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jovanov EM (2011) Body area networks for ubiquitous healthcare applications: opportunities and challenges. J Med Syst 35(5):1245–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karapanos E (2015) Sustaining user engagement with behavior – change tools. INTERACTIONS.ACM.ORG
  37. Klack, L. (2011). Future care floor: a sensitive floor for movement monitoring and fall detection in home environments. Wireless mobile communication and healthcare. pp 211–218Google Scholar
  38. Leonardi CE (2009) Knocking on elders’ door: investigating the functional and emotional geography of their domestic space. CHI 2009, April 4–9, 2009, Boston, MA, USA. Boston: ACM 978160558-246-7/09/04Google Scholar
  39. Lupton D (2014) Self-tracking modes: reflexive self-monitoring and data practices. Imminent citizenships: personhood and identity politics in the informatic ageGoogle Scholar
  40. Lupton D (2016a) Digitised health, medicine and risk, health, risk & society. Health Risk Soc 17(7–8):473–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lupton D (2016b) The quantified self. Polity Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. Lyon D (2009) Surveillance, power and everyday life. In: David L (ed) The Oxford handbook of information and communication technologies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Machiko RT (2010) Smart home with healthcare technologies for community-dwelling older adults, smart home systems. InTechGoogle Scholar
  44. Mann S (1997) Smart clothing: the “Wearable Computer” and WearCam. Personal Technol 1(1). Retrieved from http://n1nlf-1.eecg.toronto.edu/personaltechnologies/
  45. Markopoulos PD (2009) A design framework for awareness systems, awareness systems. Springer London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Markopoulos P (2016) Reflections and advances in ambient intelligence. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ 8(5):491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marston HR (2015) The design of a purpose-built exergame for fall prediction and prevention for older people. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act 12:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Metaxas GM (2007) Daily activities diarist: supporting aging in place with semantically enriched narratives. INTERACT 2007. 4663, pp 390–403. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  49. Mynatt EE (2000) Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. CUU’00 Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability. ACM, New York, pp 65–71Google Scholar
  50. Norman (1993) Things that make us smarter. Diversion Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Norman D (2010) Living with complexity. Cambridge Massachusetts, London, England: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  52. Olson P (2014) Wearable tech is plugging into health insurance. (Forbes) Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/06/19/wearable-tech-health-insurance/#1498788b5ba1
  53. Patel S (2012) A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 9:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Percival JJ (2006) Big brother or brave new world? Telecare and its implications for older people’s independence and social inclusion. Crit Soc Policy 26:888–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pino MB-S (2015) “Are we ready for robots that care for us?” Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Front Aging Neurosci 7:141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Punie YD (2005) Dark scenarios in ambient intelligence: highlighting risks and vulnerabilities. SWAMI consortium to the European Commission under contract 006507, Information Society TechnologiesGoogle Scholar
  57. Quantified Self London Meetup (2014) London QS meetup survey. Retrieved from Quantified Self: http://quantifiedself.com/2014/03/london-qs-meetup-survey/
  58. Rolfson DM (2006) Validity and reliability of the Edmonton frail scale. Age Ageing 35:526–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruckenstein M (2015) Beyond the quantified self: thematic exploration of a dataistic paradigm. New Media Soc 1(18)Google Scholar
  60. Salomon RL (2010) iFall – case studies in unexpected falls. IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE) (pp 1645–1650). IEEE, BariGoogle Scholar
  61. Shih PH (2015) Use and adoption challenges of wearable activity trackers. iConference 2015 proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  62. Smarr CP (2012, Sep) Older adults’ preferences for and acceptance of robot assitance for everyday living tasks. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 56(1):153–157Google Scholar
  63. Tacken MM (2005) Use and acceptance of new technology by older people. Findings of the international MOBILATE survey: enhancing mobility in later life. Geront Tech J 3:126–137Google Scholar
  64. The Economist (2012) Technology quarterly Q1 2012. Retrieved from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21548493
  65. UNFPA (2011) Aging in the twenty first century, a celebration and a challenge. UNFPA and HelpAge International London. New York: United Nations Population FundGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolf G (2009) wired.com. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2009/06/lbnp-knowthyself/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Graphical Digital MediaArtevelde University College GhentGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations