Technology has the potential to support aging in place to enable older adults of all backgrounds to live with dignity and autonomy in their own home for as long as they wish. However, perceptions, needs, and prototype technologies are often studied using convenience samples of older adults comprised of mid to high socioeconomic status (SES) individuals. Such populations do not represent the individuals who may benefit most from aging in place technologies, namely low-SES older adults. In this paper, we present findings from nine 8-hour long contextual observations of low-SES older adults living in rural and urban settings. We organize our findings and implications around the themes of SES status, daily routines and home characteristics. We highlight differences and similarities between rural and urban low-SES populations and discuss implications for design including designing for connection including creating “heirloom technologies”, and designing for lifestyle including space, time, family and supporting rituals.
References
1.
BalfourJ.KaplanG. (2002). Neighborhood environment and loss of physical function in older adults: Evidence from the Alameda County Study. American Journal Of Epidemiology, 155(6), 507-515. doi:10.1093/aje/155.6.507
BertolucciJ. (2008). Is Dad Up and About? Check His Monitor.Kiplinger’s Retirement Report, 15(5), 15-16.
4.
CagneyK.BrowningC.WenM. (2005). Racial disparities in self-rated health at older ages: What difference does the neighborhood make?Journals Of Gerontology -Series B Psychological Sciences And Social Sciences, 60(4), S181-S190.
5.
CaineK. E.O’BrienM. A.ParkS.RogersW. A.FiskA. D.Van IttersumK.CaparM.ParsonsL. J. (2006). Understanding acceptance of high technology products: 50 years of research. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
CaineK. E.ZimmermanC. Y.Schall-ZimmermanZ.HazlewoodW. R.CampL. J.ConnellyK. H.HuberL. L.ShankarK. (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), 1181-1195. doi: 10.1007/s10916-011-9722-1
7.
CaineK. E.ZimmermanC. Y.Schall-ZimmermanZ.HazlewoodW. R.SulgroveA. C.CampL. J.ConnellyK. H.HuberL. L.ShankarK. (2010).Digiswitch: Design and evaluation of a device for older adults to preserve privacy while monitoring health at home . In VeinotTiffany (Eds.), IHI ‘10 Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium (pp. 153-162). doi: 10.1145/1882992.1883016
8.
CeccacciS. S.GermaniM. M.MengoniM. M. (2012). User centred approach for home environment designing. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, (5th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, PETRA 2012 - Conference Program), doi:10.1145/2413097.2413136
9.
ConsolvoS.RoesslerP.SheltonB. (2004). The CareNet display: Lessons learned from an in home evaluation of an ambient display.Ubicomp 2004: Ubiquitous Computing, Proceedings, 32051-17.
10.
DollingerS. C.ChwaliszK.ZerthE. O. (2006). Telehelp line for caregivers (TLC): A comprehensive telehealth intervention for rural family caregivers. Clinical Gerontologist, 30(2), 51-54.
11.
GoodmanE.RosnerD. (2011). In Desney Tan (Chair).From garments to gardens: negotiating material relationships online and ‘by hand’. In CHI ‘11 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2257-2266). doi: 10.1145/1978942.1979273
12.
HuberL.ShankarK.CaineK.ConnellyK.CampL. J.WalkerB. A.BorreroL. (2013). How In-Home Technologies Mediate Caregiving Relationships in Later Life. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29 (7), 441 - 455.
13.
HurstA.TobiasJ. (2011). Empowering individuals with do-it-yourself assistive technology. Proceedings Of The 13Th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference: Computers & Accessibility, 11. doi:10.1145/2049536.2049541
14.
KimS.JeongY.ParkS. (2013). RFID-based indoor location tracking to ensure the safety of the elderly in smart home environments. Personal And Ubiquitous Computing, 17(8), 1699-1707. doi:10.1007/s00779-0120604-4
15.
MynattE. D.RowanJ.JacobsA.CraighillS. (2001). Digital family portraits: Supporting peace of mind for extended family members. In CHI ‘01 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 333-340). doi: 10.1145/365024.365126
16.
NewellA. F.GregorP. (2002). Design for older and disabled people - where do we go from here?.Universal Access in the Information Society, 2(1), 3-7. doi: 10.1007/s10209-002-0031-9
17.
ParkerM. H.SabataD. (2004). Home, safe home: Household and safety assistive technology. In BurdickD. C.KwonS. (Eds.), Gerotechnology: Research and Practice in Technology and Aging : a Textbook and Reference for Multiple DisciplinesNew York, NY, USA: Springer Publishing Company Inc.
18.
RowanJ.MynattE. D. (2005). In KelloggWendy (Chair). Digital family portrait field trial: support for aging in place. In CHI ‘05 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 521-530). doi: 10.1145/1054972.1055044
19.
TalamoA. A.GiorgiS. S.MelliniB. B. (2011). Designing technologies for ageing. Is simplicity always a leading criterion?. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, (Facing Complexity, CHItaly-2011 Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI Italian Chapter International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction), 33-36. doi:10.1145/2037296.2037308
20.
TomitaM. R.MannW. C.StantonK.TomitaA. D.SundarV. (2007). Use of currently available smart home technology by frail elders: Process and outcomes. AbleData, 23(1), 24-34.
21.
Van NostrandJ.Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Services and Resources Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (2003).Assisted living in rural america: A national survey. Rockville, MD, USA: Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service, Health Resources & Services Administration.
22.
WalkerD.MyrickF. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure. Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547-559. doi: 10.1177/1049732305285972
