Review of Telecare Technologies for Older People

  • Jean D. Hallewell HaslwanterEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10897)


This paper reviews technology to support aging in place. Although the populations in many countries are aging and various funding programmes have supported their development, these technologies are not yet widespread. To support people developing these systems in having more success in the future, here types of systems available and a number of systems that have been developed are described. Furthermore, some of the benefits, both potential and realized, are described.


AAL Aging in place Older people Telecare 



Thank you to Geraldine Fitzpatrick & Carolyn Mayr for their assistance with early drafts.


  1. 1.
    AAL Programme: AAL project success stories: 10 AAL innovations creating real impact (2015).
  2. 2.
    American Academy of Neurology: Weight loss in old age may signal dementia. ScienceDaily (2009).
  3. 3.
    Aumayr, G.: From ambient assisted living to active and assisted living. In: Pietka, E., Badura, P., Kawa, J., Wieclawek, W. (eds.) Information Technologies in Medicine, vol. 472. AISC (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergmo, T.S.: Using QALYs in telehealth evaluations: a systematic review of methodology and transparency. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14, 332 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blythe, M.A., Monk, A.F., Doughty, K.: Socially dependable design: the challenge of ageing populations for HCI. Interact. Comput. 17(6), 672–689 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyce, J., Shone, G.: Effects of ageing on smell and taste. Postgrad. Med. J. 82(966), 239–241 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit: Abschlussbericht zur Studie “Unterstützung Pflegebedürftiger durch technische Assistenzsysteme”. Technical report, 11 2013.
  8. 8.
    Busquin, P., Aarts, E., Dózsa, C., et al.: Final evaluation of the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme. Technical report, European Commission, Brussels (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cartwright, M., Hirani, S.P., Rixon, L., et al.: Effect of Telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months. BMJ 346 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chan, M., Estève, D., Escriba, C., Campo, E.: A review of smart homes - present state and future challenges. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 91(1), 55–81 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, R.Y.R., Schulz, J.P.: The effect of information communication technology interventions on reducing social isolation in the elderly: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(1), e18 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chessa, S., Furfari, F., Potorti, F., et al.: The evAAL project: evaluating AAL systems through competitive benchmarking. AAL Forum 2010, 183–192 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Department of Health (UK): Whole System Demonstrator programme: Headline findings. Technical report (12 2011).
  14. 14.
    Doppler, J., Sommer, S., Gradl, C., Rottermanner, G.: BRELOMATE - A distributed, multi-device platform for online information, communication and gaming services among the elderly. In: Miesenberger, K., Bühler, C., Penaz, P. (eds.) ICCHP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9758, pp. 277–280. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Commission: The demographic future of Europe - from challenge to opportunity. Luxembourg (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischinger, D., Einramhof, P., Papoutsakis, K., et al.: Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First Prototype and Lessons Learned. Robotics Auton. Syst, 75, Part A, 60–78 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Hinder, S., Procter, R., Stones, R.: What matters to older people with assisted living needs? a phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc. Sci. Med. 93, 86–94 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gregor, P., Newell, A.F., Zajicek, M.: Designing for dynamic diversity: interfaces for older people. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies. pp. 151–156. ASSETS 2002, ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hallewell Haslwanter, J.D.: User-Centered Development of sensor-based Systems for Older People. Ph.D. thesis, TU Wien (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hallewell Haslwanter, J.D., Fitzpatrick, G.: Issues in the development of AAL systems: what experts think. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. pp. 201–208. PETRA 2017, ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanke, S., Mayer, C., Hoeftberger, O., et al.: universAAL - an open and consolidated AAL platform. In: Wichert, R., Eberhardt, B. (eds.) Ambient Assisted Living: 4. AAL-Kongress 2011, pp. 127–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henderson, C., Knapp, M., Fernández, J.L., et al.: Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions. BMJ 346 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Himmelsbach, J., Bobeth, J., Garschall, M., et al.: EvAALuation: Indikatorenhandbuch für die Messung von Wirkungen und Effizienzsteigerungen (draft), May 2017.
  24. 24.
    Itoh, Y., Miyajima, A., Watanabe, T.: ‘Tsunagari’ communication: fostering a feeling of connection between family members. In: CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 810–811. CHI EA 2002. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kalogianni, A.: Toyota jumpstarts robotic elderly care with the HSR robot prototype, July 2015.
  26. 26.
    Khosravi, P., Ghapanchi, A.H.: Investigating the effectiveness of technologies applied to assist seniors: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 85, 17–26 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee, M.L., Dey, A.K.: Reflecting on pills and phone use: supporting awareness of functional abilities for older adults. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2095–2104. CHI 2011. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leitner, P., Neuschmid, J., Ruscher, S.: TAALXONOMY - Entwicklung einer praktikablen Taxonomie zur effektiven Klassifizierung von AAL-Produkten und Dienstleistungen - Guidebook. Austria, June 2015Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ly, N.T., Serna, A., Aknine, S., Hurtienne, J.: Towards supporting caregivers to monitor the whereabouts of people with dementia. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. pp. 57:1–57:4. NordiCHI 2016. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morandell, M., Rumsch, A., Biallas, M., et al.: iWalkActive: an active walker for active people. In: Encarnação, P., Azevedo, L., Gelderblom, G.J., Newell, A., Mathiassen, N.E. (eds.) Assistive Technology: From Research to Practice. Assist. Technol. Res. Ser., vol. 33, pp. 216–221 (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mynatt, E.D., Essa, I., Rogers, W.: Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In: Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability, pp. 65–71. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pearce, W., Raman, S., Turner, A.: Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects of evidence-based medicine and policy. Trials 16, 394 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peek, S.T.M., Wouters, J.E., Luijkx, G.K., Vrijhoef, J.H.: What it takes to successfully implement technology for aging in place. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(5), e98 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peek, S.T.M., Wouters, E.J.M., vanHoof, J., Luijkx, K.G., Boeije, H.R., Vrijhoef, H.J.M.: Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83(4), 235–248 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Riche, Y., Mackay, W.: MarkerClock: a communicating augmented clock for elderly. In: Baranauskas, C., Palanque, P., Abascal, J., Barbosa, S.D.J. (eds.) INTERACT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4663, pp. 408–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sanders, C., Rogers, A., Bowen, R., et al.: Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 12, 220 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Spellerberg, A., Schelisch, L.: Ein dreiviertel Jahr mit PAUL: Assisted Living in Kaiserslautern. In: Ambient Assisted Living 2009. pp. 393–397. VDE Verlag GmbH, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Steventon, A., Bardsley, M., Billings, J., et al.: Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality. BMJ 344 (2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Svagård, I.S., Boysen, E.S.: Electronic medication dispensers finding the right users – a pilot study in a norwegian municipality home care service. In: Miesenberger, K., Bühler, C., Penaz, P. (eds.) ICCHP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9758, pp. 281–284. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  40. 40.
    Turner, K.J., McGee-Lennon, M.R.: Advances in telecare over the past 10 years. Smart Homecare Technol. Telehealth 1, 21–34 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    United4Health: Telehealth in practice - care delivery models from 14 regions in Europe, April 2016.
  42. 42.
    Wagner, F., Basran, J., Bello-Haas, V.D.: A review of monitoring technology for use with older adults. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 35(1), 28–34 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yusif, S., Soar, J., Hafeez-Baig, A.: Older people, assistive technologies, and the barriers to adoption: A systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 94, 112–116 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhang, C., Tian, Y., Capezuti, E.: Privacy preserving automatic fall detection for elderly using RGBD cameras. In: Miesenberger, K., Karshmer, A., Penaz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7382, pp. 625–633. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Wels and TU WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations