Advertisement

Living In Place: the Impact of Smart Technology

  • Monique Chabot
  • Louie Delaware
  • Sabrena McCarley
  • Casey Little
  • Allison Nye
  • Emily Anderson
Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (O Addison, Section Editor)
  • 10 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To discuss impact of smart technology and highlight specific types of technologies that would be supportive of older adults to Live In Place.

Recent Findings

Smart technology has potential to increase the ability of older adults to remain in their homes by monitoring health, safety, and falls, preventing potential accidents and injuries. Several types of smart technology were identified in the literature as supportive of Living In Place. These include sensor systems with predictability analysis, wearable technology, information and communication technology, and smart homes. In general, the less intrusive and less high maintenance a smart technology, the better received it is by an older adult. Several considerations need to be made when choosing an appropriate smart technology device. Older adults’ views, beliefs, and comfort regarding smart technology play a large role in adoption rate. Smart technology use requirements also need to match the older adult’s abilities, while supporting areas of impairment. Finally, clinicians need to consider ethics regarding smart technology, such as privacy concerns and informed consent. As a result, a comprehensive assessment process is necessary in order to make appropriate recommendations.

Summary

Smart technology is an increasingly large part of our world with more devices being developed every day. It is important to take into consideration the older adult’s needs, abilities, and tolerance for technology in general, while also considering the features of devices before making recommendations. The appropriate smart technology has the potential to increase the ability of older adults to remain in their homes by supporting their independence in daily activities.

Keywords

Aging in place Living in place Smart technology Home modifications 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Monique Chabot and Sabrena McCarley both report serving on the Medical Advisory Board of the Living In Place Institute.

Louie Delaware is the co-founder of the Living In Place Institute.

Casey Little, Allison Nye, and Emily Anderson declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Administration for Community Living. 2017 profile of older Americans.2017 [cited 30 March 2019]. Available from https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability%20in%20America/2017OlderAmericansProfile.pdf. 30 March 2019
  2. 2.
    • Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, Cruz M, Rincon R. Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2016;91:44–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.007 This article is a recent systematic review which includes the various benefits associated with smart home technologies and the perspectives of older adults on the benefits and challenges of the technology. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Rantz MJ, Skubic M, Popescu M, Galambos C, Koopman RJ, Alexander GL, et al. A new paradigm of technology-enabled “vital signs” for early detection of health change for older adults. Gerontology. 2015;61(3):281–90.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000366518 This article explores the use of sensors embedded within the home environment to measure vital signs, falls, and risk of falls. Sensors are the most common smart technology employed for older adults, and decreasing the risk of falls is a recurrent campaign for preserving the health and independence of older adults. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee ML, Vouchilas G. Preparing to age in place: attitudes, approaches, and actions. Hous Soc. 2016;43(2):69–81.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2016.1221039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stones D, Gullifer J. ‘At home, it’s just so much easier to be yourself:’ older adults’ perception of ageing in place. Ageing Soc. 2016;36:449–81.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X14001214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    • Peek STM, Aarts S, Wouters EJM. Can smart home technology deliver on the promise of independent living? In: van Hoof J, Demiris G, Wouters EJM, editors. Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01904-8_41-1. This article is a relatively recent systematic review that discusses the impact of various types of smart home technology, their potential to support daily independence, and the benefits and challenges of these smart technologies from the older adults’ perspectives. It specifically looks at the different types of smart technology and their individual impacts. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, Nieboer M, Van Der Voort C, Aarts S, et al. Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology. 2016;62(2):226–37.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee ML, Dey AK. Sensor-based observations of daily living for aging in place. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2015;19(1):27–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0810-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li J, Ma Q, Chan AH, Man SS. Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: smart wearables acceptance model. Appl Ergon. 2019;75:162–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blackman S, Matlo C, Bobrovitskiy C, Waldoch A, Fang ML, Jackson P, et al. Ambient assisted living technologies for aging well: a scoping review. J Intell Syst. 2016;25(1).  https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2014-0136.
  11. 11.
    Kim K-I, Gollamudi SS, Steinhubl S. Digital technology to enable aging in place. Exp Gerontol. 2017;88:25–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2016.11.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Lewis JE, Neider MB. Designing wearable technology for an aging population. Ergon Des. 2017;25(3):4–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804616645488 . This article discusses design characteristics imperative for the utilization and adoption of wearable technology with the older adult population, which is relevant considering the pervasiveness of this specific smart technology in today’s world. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Puri A, Kim B, Nguyen O, Stolee P, Tung J, Lee J. User acceptance of wrist- worn activity trackers among community- dwelling older adults: mixed method study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(11):e171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Phelan D. Has apple watch series 4 fall detection just saved its first life? Forbes. 2018. [Cited 22 April 2019] Available from https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidphelan/2018/10/26/has-apple-watch-series-4-fall-detection-saved-its-first-life/#25a094377b45. 21 April 2019
  15. 15.
    Dean J. The future of wearable tech is called a hearing aid: Bloomsberg Businessweek; 2019. [Cited 22 April 2019] Available from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-18/the-future-of-wearable-tech-is-called-a-hearing-aid. 21 April 2019
  16. 16.
    Delello JA, McWhorter RR. Reducing the digital divide: connecting older adults to iPad technology. J Appl Gerontol. 2017;36(1):3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chung J, Demiris G, Thompson HJ. Ethical considerations regarding the use of smart home technologies for older adults: an integrative review. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2016;34(1):155–81.  https://doi.org/10.1891/0739-6686.34.155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wesson J, Clemson L, Crawford JD, Kochan NA, Brodaty H, Reppermund S. Measurement of functional cognition and complex everyday activities in older adults with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia: validity of the large Allen’s cognitive level screen. J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;25(5):471–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2016.11.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collinet I, et al. The Montreal cognitive assessment, MOCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532.5414.2005.53221.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katzman R, Brown TA, Fuld PA, Peck A, Schechter R, Schimmel H, et al. Validation of a short orientation-memory-concentration test of cognitive impairment. Am J Psychiatry. 1983;140(6):734–9.  https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.140.6.734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hartman-Maeir A, Harel H, Katz N. Kettle test- a brief measure of cognitive functional performance: reliability and validity in stroke rehabilitation. Am J Occup Ther. 2009;63(5):592–9.  https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.63.5.592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cooke DM, McKenna K, Fleming J. Development of a standardized occupational therapy screening tool for visual perception in adults. Scand J Occup Ther. 2005;12(2):59–71.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11038124010020683-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mendez MF, Ala T, Underwood KL. Development of scoring criteria for the clock drawing task in Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992 Nov;40(11):1095–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j/1532-5415/1992.tb01796.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gauthier L, Dehaut F, Joanette Y. The bells test: a quantitative and qualitative test for visual neglect. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1989;11(2):49–51.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luijkx K, Peek S, Wouters E. “Grandma, you should do it--it’s cool” older adults and the role of family members in their acceptance of technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(12):15470–85.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121214999 “Live In Place” and “Living In Place” are trademarks of the Living In Place Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monique Chabot
    • 1
  • Louie Delaware
    • 2
  • Sabrena McCarley
    • 3
  • Casey Little
    • 4
  • Allison Nye
    • 5
  • Emily Anderson
    • 6
  1. 1.King of PrussiaUSA
  2. 2.LouisvilleUSA
  3. 3.NapaUSA
  4. 4.LanghorneUSA
  5. 5.BlackwoodUSA
  6. 6.PhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations