Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

ETHICS OF SMART HOUSE WELFARE TECHNOLOGY FOR OLDER ADULTS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

  • Veralia Gabriela Sánchez (a1), Ingrid Taylor (a2) and Pia Cecilie Bing-Jonsson (a2)

Abstract

Background: The University College of Southeast Norway has an on-going project to develop a smart house welfare system to allow older adults and people with disabilities to remain in their homes for as long as they wish in safe, dignified, living conditions.

Objectives: This article reviews reported ethical challenges to implementing smart houses for older adults.

Methods: A systematic literature review identified twenty-four articles in English, French, Spanish, and Norwegian, which were analyzed and synthesized using Hofmann's question list to investigate the reported ethical challenges.

Results: Smart houses offer a promising way to improve access to home care for older adults and people with disabilities. However, important ethical challenges arise when implementing smart houses, including cost-effectiveness, privacy, autonomy, informed consent, dignity, safety, and trust.

Conclusions: The identified ethical challenges are important to consider when developing smart house systems. Due to the limitations of smart house technology, designers and users should be mindful that smart houses can achieve a safer and more dignified life-style but cannot solve all the challenges related to ageing, disabilities, and disease. At some point, smart houses can no longer help persons as they develop needs that smart houses cannot meet.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Eurostat. Population structure and ageing. Eurostat-Statistics Explained; 2017 [updated December 22, 2016]. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing (accessed July 3, 2017).
2. sentralbyrå, S. Population and population changes, 1 January 2017. 2017 [updated February 23, 2017]; https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/folkemengde/aar-per-1-januar (accessed March 1, 2017).
3. Sentralbyrå, S. Key figures for the population. 2017 [updated February 23, 2017]; https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/nokkeltall/population (accessed March 1, 2017).
4. Chan, M, Estève, D, Escriba, C, Campo, E. A review of smart homes—Present state and future challenges. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2008;91:5581.
5. Eurostat. Distribution of population aged 65 and over by type of household - EU-SILC survey. 2017 [updated January 8, 2017]; http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_lvps30&lang=en (accessed September 8, 2017).
6. Hofmann, B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312318.
7. Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, Mulrow, C, Gøtzsche, PC, Ioannidis, JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339.
8. Hofmann, B. Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23:631641.
9. Assasi, N, Schwartz, L, Tarride, J-E, Campbell, K, Goeree, R. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: A systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:203220.
10. Hofmann, B. Toward a method for exposing and elucidating ethical issues with human cognitive enhancement technologies. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23:413429.
11. Sadri, F. Ambient intelligence: A survey. ACM Comput Surv. 2011;43:36.1-.66.
12. Detweiler, CA, Hindriks, KV. A survey of values, technologies and contexts in pervasive healthcare. Pervasive Mob Comput. 2016;27:113.
13. Ding, D, Cooper, RA, Pasquina, PF, Fici-Pasquina, L. Sensor technology for smart homes. Maturitas. 2011;69:131136.
14. Friedewald, M, Vildjiounaite, E, Punie, Y, Wright, D. Privacy, identity and security in ambient intelligence: A scenario analysis. Telematics Informatics. 2007;24:1529.
15. Rozo, C. Consideraciones éticas de la tecnología de asistencia en personas en condición de discapacidad: Posibilitar o limitar la autonomía? Rev Latinoam Bioét. 2010;10:5665.
16. Demiris, G, Hensel, B. ‘Smart homes’ for patients at the end of life. J Hous Elderly. 2009;23:106115.
17. Roberts, C, Mort, M. Reshaping what counts as care: Older people, work and new technologies. ALTER - Eur J Disabil Res. 2009;3:138158.
18. Powers, BA. Everyday ethics in assisted living facilitites: A framework for assessing resident-focused issues. J Gerontol Nurs. 2005;31:3137.
19. Berridge, C. Breathing room in monitored space: The impact of passive monitoring technology on privacy in independent living. Gerontologist. 2016;56:807816.
20. Essén, A. The two facets of electronic care surveillance: An exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:128136.
21. Mahoney, DF, Purtilo, RB, Webbe, FM, Alwan, M, Bharucha, AJ, Adlam, TD, et al. In-home monitoring of persons with dementia: Ethical guidelines for technology research and development. Alzheimers Dement. 2007;3:217226.
22. Hofmann, B. Ethical challenges with welfare technology: A review of the literature. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19:389406.
23. Novitzky, P, Smeaton, A, Chen, C, Irving, K, Jacquemard, T, O'Brolcháin, F, et al. A review of contemporary work on the ethics of ambient assisted living technologies for people with dementia. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21:707765.
24. Noury, N, Virone, G, Ye, J, Rialle, V, Demongeot, J. New trends in health smart homes. Nouvelle directions en habitats intelligents pour la santé. ITBM-RBM. 2003;24:122135.
25. Rozo Reyes, CM. Disability and technosociety. Rev Latinoam Bioét. 2016;16:118139.
26. Rauhala, M, Topo, P. Independent living, technology and ethics. Technol Disabil. 2003;15:205214.
27. sentralbyrå, S. Nursing and care services. 2016 [updated June 29, 2016]; https://www.ssb.no/en/helse/statistikker/pleie/aar/2016-06-29#content (accessed December 21, 2016).
28. Rashidi, P, Mihailidis, A. A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2013;17:579590.
29. Saranummi, N, Kivisaari, S, Särkikoski, T, Graafmans, J. Ageing & technology. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technology Studies, Joint Research Centre of the European Union; 1997.
30. Finken, S, Mörtberg, C. The thinking house: On configuring of an infrastructure of care. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop, Infrastructures for Healthcare: Global Healthcare; 2011.
31. Trydegård, G-B. Care work in changing welfare states: Nordic care workers’ experiences. Eur J Ageing. 2012;9:119129.
32. Fjelltun, AMS, Henriksen, N, Norberg, A, Gilje, F, Normann, HK. Carers’ and nurses’ appraisals of needs of nursing home placement for frail older in Norway. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18:30793088.
33. Demiris, G, Rantz, MJ, Aud, MA, Marek, KD, Tyrer, HW, Skubic, M, et al. Older adults' attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: A pilot study. Med Inform Internet Med. 2004;29:8794.
34. Sanchez, VG, Pfeiffer, CF, eds. Legal aspects on smart house welfare technology for older people in norway. Intelligent environments 2016. Workshop Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent Environments; IOS Press; 2016.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Sánchez et al supplementary material 1
Appendix

 Word (15 KB)
15 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed