Smart Home Technology for the Elderly: Perceptions of Multidisciplinary Stakeholders

Abstract

The "implementation" and use of smart home technology to lengthen independent living of non-instutionalized elderly have not always been flawless. The purpose of this study is to show that problems with smart home technology can be partially ascribed to differences in perception of the stakeholders involved. The perceptual worlds of caregivers, care receivers, and designers vary due to differences in background and experiences. To decrease the perceptual differences between the stakeholders, we propose an analysis of the expected and experienced effects of smart home technology for each group. For designers the effects will involve effective goals, caregivers are mainly interested in effects on workload and quality of care, while care receivers are influenced by usability effects. Making each stakeholder aware of the experienced and expected effects of the other stakeholders may broaden their perspectives and may lead to more successful implementations of smart home technology, and technology in general.

A Review of Contemporary Work on the Ethics of Ambient Assisted Living Technologies for People with Dementia

“…These stakeholders involved in our ethical analysis had been previously defined by various authors (Allen et al, 2008;Duquenoy and Whitehouse, 2006;Duquenoy, 2004;Hofmann, 2012;R. Sparrow and L. Sparrow, 2006;Sponselee et al, 2008;van Hoof et al, 2011). For all these stakeholders we have listed the ethical issues present in the group of relevant articles that occur in three different stages of the technology: R&D, clinical trials, and clinical application.…”

“…With correct motivation, a greater intention to use the ICT devices can be reached by the elderly (Zaad and Ben Allouch, 2008) who are willing to accept technology if it is worth the effort (Wallace et al, 2010). It has been reported that designers are usually less successful than relatives in motivating users to use ICT devices (Sponselee et al, 2008). Relatives can have a major impact on PwD's subjective norms for ICT acceptance (Steve Lauriks et al, 2010;Zaad and Ben Allouch, 2008).…”

“…accidental falls) (Hofmann, 2012;Sponselee et al, 2008). This can have the positive benefit of reducing anxiety (Hofmann, 2012).…”

“…However, the use of assistive technology or leakage of disease data -associated with the diagnosis of dementia -may cause embarrassment (Kumar and Lee, 2011) or even stigmatisation (Chan, Campo, et al, 2009;Dishman and Carrillo, 2007;van Hoof et al, 2011;Kleinberger et al, 2007;Martin et al, 2010;O'Neill, Mason, et al, 2011;Oppenauer et al, 2007;Palm, 2012;Louise Robinson et al, 2009;Salces et al, 2006;A. Sixsmith and J. Sixsmith, 2008;Sponselee et al, 2008;Wright, 2011;Wright and Wadhwa, 2010;Zwijsen et al, 2010). Some AAL technologies evoked resistance in certain persons with MCI because of their 'handicapped-look' design (Francis et al, 2009) so the design of the devices should be aesthetically pleasing for the users (Francis et al, 2009;Louise Robinson et al, 2009).…”

“…Moreover, there are reports of concerns regarding the deception of vulnerable people by the substitution of human emotions or relations by technologies (Oost and Reed, 2011) and insecurity (Sponselee et al, 2008) during the use of technology by the care-givers.…”