Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T00:45:24.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Technology and trust: older people's perspectives of a home monitoring system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2015

MABEL L. S. LIE*
Affiliation:
Institute of Cellular Medicine and School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, UK.
STEPHEN LINDSAY
Affiliation:
Computer Science Department, Swansea University, UK.
KATIE BRITTAIN
Affiliation:
Institute of Health & Society, and Newcastle Institute of Ageing, Newcastle University, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Mabel L. S. Lie, Institute of Cellular Medicine and School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Claremont Bridge Building, Claremont Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK E-mail: Mabel.Lie@ncl.ac.uk

Abstract

With demographic changes and the growing numbers of older people living alone, concerns have been raised about the care of the ageing population. Increasingly, developments in technology are being seen as the solution to these concerns. For those who do not see themselves as old or frail enough to require personal care provision, and who prefer to maintain their identity as autonomous and independent individuals, the development of assistive technologies such as ambient home monitoring systems is one answer. However, this involves careful negotiations with older people's understandings of safety and privacy, and their experiences and relationships with technology, their carers and relevant service-providers. In two trials of a home monitoring system funded by the United Kingdom Technology Strategy Board, older people were interviewed pre-trial and post-trial about their perspectives on these issues. This paper presents a conceptual analysis of the qualitative data using a sociological framework of trust that considers habitual action, and relationships with kin and with wider institutions. The research found that older people's habits and norms do not need to be disrupted by the ambient system. What was of more importance was relationships between the older person and her or his ‘monitor’ based on trust, as well as institutional providers who need to instil or earn trust.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alwan, M., Dalal, S., Mack, D., Kell, S. W., Turner, B., Leachtenauer, J. and Felder, R. 2006. Impact of monitoring technology in assisted living: outcome pilot. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 10, 1, 192–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ball, M. M., Perkins, M. M., Whittington, F. J., Hollingsworth, C., King, S. V. and Combs, B. L. 2004. Independence in assisted living. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 4, 467–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, S., Schulz, R., Downs, J., Matthews, J., Barron, B. and Seelman, K. 2009. Disability, age, and informational privacy attitudes in quality of life technology applications: results from a national web survey. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2, 1, 5:121.Google Scholar
Birnholtz, J. and Jones-Rounds, M. 2010. Independence and interaction: understanding seniors’ privacy and awareness needs for aging in place. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Atlanta, Georgia. DOI: 10.1145/1753326.1753349 Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brownsell, S., Bradley, D., Blackburn, S., Cardinaux, F. and Hawley, M. S. 2011. A systematic review of lifestyle monitoring technologies. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 17, 4, 185–9.Google Scholar
Bruce, C. R. 2012. Informed decision making for in-home use of motion sensor-based monitoring technologies. The Gerontologist, 52, 3, 317–24.Google Scholar
Caine, K., Zimmerman, C., Schall-Zimmerman, Z., Hazlewood, W., Jean Camp, L., Connelly, K., Huber, L. and Shankar, K. 2011. DigiSwitch: a device to allow older adults to monitor and direct the collection and transmission of health information collected at home. Journal of Medical Systems, 35, 5, 1181–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carder, P. C. 2002. The social world of assisted living. Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 1, 118.Google Scholar
Clark, H., Gough, H. and Macfarlane, A. 2004. ‘It Pays Dividends’: Direct Payments and Older People. The Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Conchie, S. M., Donald, I. J. and Taylor, P. J. 2006. Trust: missing piece(s) in the safety puzzle. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 26, 5, 1097–104.Google Scholar
de Ruyter, B. and Pelgrim, E. 2007. Ambient assisted-living research in carelab. Interactions, 14, 4, 30–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demiris, G. 2008. Smart homes and ambient assisted living in an aging society. Methods of Information in Medicine, 47, 1, 56–7.Google Scholar
Evandrou, J. M., Falkingham, K. R. and Scott, A. 2001. The dynamics of living arrangements in later life: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Population Trends, 105, 3744.Google Scholar
Gaymu, J. and Springer, S. 2010. Living conditions and life satisfaction of older Europeans living alone: a gender and cross-country analysis. Ageing & Society, 30, 7, 1153–75.Google Scholar
Hossain, M. A. and Ahmed, D. T. 2012. Virtual caregiver: an ambient-aware elderly monitoring system. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 16, 6, 1024–31.Google Scholar
Huber, L. 2013. How in-home technologies mediate caregiving relationships in later life. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 29, 7, 441–55.Google Scholar
Larizza, M. F., Zukerman, I., Bohnert, F., Busija, L., Bentley, S. A., Russell, R. A. and Rees, G. 2014. In-home monitoring of older adults with vision impairment: exploring patients’, caregivers’ and professionals’ views. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 21, 1, 5663.Google Scholar
Misztal, B. A. 1996. Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social Order. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moffatt, S., Higgs, P., Rummery, K. and Jones, I. R. 2012. Choice, consumerism and devolution: growing old in the welfare state(s) of Scotland, Wales and England. Ageing & Society, 32, 5, 725–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, S. M. 2001. Joint and individual interviewing in the context of cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 4, 553–67.Google Scholar
Mort, M., Roberts, C., Pols, J., Domenech, M., Moser, I. and The EFORTT Investigators 2015. Ethical implications of home telecare for older people: a framework derived from a multisited participative study. Health Expectations, 18, 3, 438–49.Google Scholar
Mortenson, W. B., Sixsmith, A. and Woolrych, R. 2015. The power(s) of observation: theoretical perspectives on surveillance technologies and older people. Ageing & Society, 35, 3, 512–30.Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics 2011. General Lifestyle Survey 2009. Office for National Statistics, London.Google Scholar
Philips 2015. Lifeline with AutoAlert. Available online at http://www.lifelinesys.com/content/lifeline-products/auto-alert [Accessed 10 April 2015].Google Scholar
Richards, L. 1999. Using NVivo in Qualitative Research. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Riche, Y. and Mackay, W. 2010. PeerCare: supporting awareness of rhythms and routines for better aging in place. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19, 1, 73104.Google Scholar
Roth, E. G. and Eckert, J. K. 2011. The vernacular landscape of assisted living. Journal of Aging Studies, 25, 3, 215–24.Google Scholar
Sheehan, N. W. and Oakes, C. E. 2003. Bringing assisted living services into congregate housing: residents’ perspectives. Gerontologist, 43, 5, 766–70.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A. J. 2000. An evaluation of an intelligent home monitoring system. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 6, 2, 6372.Google Scholar
van Hoof, J., Kort, H. S. M., Rutten, P. G. S. and Duijnstee, M. S. H. 2011. Ageing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: perspectives of older users. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80, 5, 310–31.Google Scholar
Vines, J., Lindsay, S., Pritchard, G., Lie, M., Greathead, D., Olivier, P. and Brittain, K. 2013. Making family care work: dependence, privacy and remote home monitoring telecare systems. In UbiComp. Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. ACM, New York, 607–16.Google Scholar
World Health Organization 2015. Data and Statistics on World Ageing. Available online at http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/healthy-ageing/data-and-statistics [Accessed 10 April 2015].Google Scholar
Zwijsen, S. A., Niemeijer, A. R. and Hertogh, C. 2011. Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview of the literature. Aging & Mental Health, 15, 4, 419–27.Google Scholar