Satisfaction and use of personal emergency response systems

Abstract

High rates of non-use of PERS in everyday life and after falls can be found. Subscribers' estimation of relevance but not satisfaction predicts the usage of PERS in everyday life. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons not using a PERS.

Multimodal sensor-based fall detection within the domestic environment of elderly people

“…Future studies on elderly people should therefore be conducted in order to create more reliable fall detection algorithms. The acceptance of such systems is generally high [8,10] although within the current study, subjects tended to reject the sensors, raised practicability and privacy issues and were reluctant to participate in similar studies. Potentially the relatively long study duration of 8 weeks was able to uncover these issues.…”

Benchmark problem for human activity identification using floor vibrations

“…Although User-Activated Fall Alarm devices are not expensive and easy to use, people are not always able or willing to press the button (Bradley, 2011;Fleming & Brayne, 2008;Heinbüchner, Hautzinger, Becker, & Pfeiffer, 2010;Simpson & Mandelstam, 1995). Furthermore in Falls, head impact level can reach upwards of 500 g, which is a level that can cause unconsciousness and serious injury, therefore users may not able to press the button after the incident .…”

Sensitivity and False Alarm Rate of a Fall Sensor in Long-Term Fall Detection in the Elderly

“…To prevent long lies, commercially available personal emergency response systems provide applications to call for help. However, around 80% of older people wearing these systems who are unable to recover after a fall do not use their alarm system to call for help [11,12]. …”