Although the potential benefits of unobtrusive in-home sensing technologies for maintaining health and independence of older adults have been highlighted in recent research, little is known about their views toward such technology. The aims of this project were to identify monitoring needs and expectations of community-residing elderly and their family members. Focus groups were presented with examples of in-home monitoring devices and data output; participants were asked to consider whether the data showed information that was meaningful to them, and how and to whom they would like to have such data disseminated. Content analysis of transcripts revealed four dominant themes: maintaining independence, detecting cognitive decline, sharing of information, and the trade-off between privacy and usefulness of monitoring. The acceptance by elderly of unobtrusive in-home monitoring was closely tied to perceived utility of data generated by such systems. Privacy concerns appeared to be less of an issue than anticipated in this sample.
Aarp. (2004). Caregiving in the U.S. Available from http://www.aarp.org/research/
2.
Adams, N., Stubbs, D., & Woods, V. (2005). Psychological barriers to Internet usage among older adults in the UK. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 30, 3-17.
3.
Brownsell, S.J., Bradley, D.A., Bragg, R., Catlin, P., & Carlier, J. (2000). Do community alarm users want telecare? Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 6, 199-204.
4.
Cannuscio, C., Block, J., & Kawachi, I. (2003). Social capital and successful aging: The role of senior housing. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139, 395-399.
5.
Clepper, I. (1992). Noncompliance: The invisible epidemic. Drug Topics, pp. 44-65.
6.
Cohen-Mansfield, J., Creedon, M.A., Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M.J., Dutra, L.A., & Herman, R.P. (2005). Electronic memory aids for community-dwelling elderly persons: Attitudes, preferences, and potential utilization. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 24, 3-20.
7.
Cutler, S.J., Hendricks, J., & Guyer, A. (2003). Age differences in home computer availability and use. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 58B, S271-S280.
8.
Day, J., Janus, A., & Davis, J. (2005). Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
9.
DeBettengnies, B., Mahurin, R., & Pirozzolo, F. (1990). Insight for impairment in independent living skills in Alzheimer's disease and multi-infarct dementia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12, 355-363.
10.
Demiris, G., Rantz, M.J., Aud, M.A., Marek, K.D., Tyrers, H.W., Skubic, M., & Hussam, A.A. (2004). Older adults' attitudes towards and perceptions of “smart home” technologies: A pilot study. Medical Informatics, 29, 87-94.
11.
Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.
12.
Gurwitz, J., Field, T., Harrold, L., Rothschild, J., Debellis, K., Seger, A., et al. (2003). Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 1107-1116.
13.
Kassirer, J.P. (2000). Patients, physicians, and the Internet. Health Affairs, 19, 115-123.
14.
Kaye, J., Hayes, T., Zitzelberger, T., Yeagers, J., Pavel, M., Jimison, H., et al. (in press). Deploying wide-scale in-home assessment technology . In Technology and aging. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
15.
Lakshman, M., Charles, M., Biswas, M., Sinha, L., & Arora, N.K. (2000). Focus group discussions in medical research. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 67, 358-362.
16.
Magnusson, L., & Hanson, E.J. (2003). Ethical issues arising from a research, technology and development project to support frail older people and their family carers at home. Health and Social Care in the Community, 11, 431-439.
17.
Mahoney, D.F., Purtilo, R.B., Webbe, F.M., Alwan, M., Bharucha, A.J., Adlam, T.D., et al. (2007). In-home monitoring of persons with dementia: Ethical guidelines for technology research and development. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 3, 217-226.
18.
Mann, W.C., Marchant, T., Tomita, M., Fraas, L., & Stanton, K. (2002). Elder acceptance of health monitoring devices in the home. Care Management Journals, 3, 91-98.
19.
Melenhorst, A.S., & Bouwhuis, D.G. (2004). When do older adults consider the Internet? An exploratory study of benefit perception. Gerontechnology, 3, 89-101.
20.
Melenhorst, A.S., Fisk, A.D., Mynatt, E.D., & Rogers, W.A. (2004). Potential intrusiveness of aware home technology: Perceptions of older adults. Paper presented at the HFES 48th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana.
21.
Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
National Safety Council. (2004). Report on injuries in America, 2003. Retrieved from www.nsc.org/library/report_injury_usa.htm
23.
Neal, M.B., & Hammer, L.B. (2006). Working couples caring for children and aging parents: Effects on work and well-being. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ohta, S., Nakamoto, H., Shinagawa, Y., & Tanikawa, T. (2002). A health monitoring system for elderly people living alone. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 8, 151-156.
26.
Prigerson, H.G. (2003). Costs to society of family caregiving for patients with end-stage Alzheimer's disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 1891-1892.
27.
Sixsmith, A.J. (2000). An evaluation of an intelligent home monitoring system. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 6, 63-72.
28.
Stefanov, D.H., Bien, Z., & Bang, W.C. (2004). The smart house for older persons and persons with physical disabilities: Structure, technology arrangements, and perspectives . IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering , 12, 228-249.
29.
Svarstad, B., Chewning, B., Sleath, B., & Claesson, C. (1999). The Brief Medication Questionnaire: A tool for screening patient adherence and barriers to adherence. Patient Education and Counseling, 37, 113-124.
30.
Zimmer, Z., & Chappell, N.L. (1999). Receptivity to new technology among older adults. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21, 222-230.
