Exploring the Acceptance of Video-Based Medical Support

  • Carsten RöckerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 903)


This paper reports on a study (N = 471) exploring the acceptance of video-based home monitoring systems as well as criteria influencing their acceptance. While most participants stated that they would home monitoring solutions under certain conditions, the majority of participants is rather reluctant to use systems that transmit visual and acoustical information to remote medical personnel. Besides age, most user characteristics, which played important roles in technology acceptance research for many years, do not appear to be decisive factors for the acceptance of electronic home-monitoring services.


Active assisted living Electronic homecare e-health Video-based monitoring Technology acceptance User-centered design Study 


  1. 1.
    Ballegaard, S.A., Hansen, T.R., Kyng, M.: Healthcare in everyday life - designing healthcare services for daily life. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2008), pp. 1807–1816. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hennessy, C., Walker, A.: Promoting multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary ageing research in the UK. Ageing Soc. 31(1), 52–69 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Demiris, G., Oliver, D.P., Dickey, G., Skubic, M., Rantz, M.: Findings from a participatory evaluation of a smart home application for older adults. Technol. Health Care 16(2), 111–118 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dewsbury, G., Taylor, B., Edge, M.: The process of designing appropriate smart homes: including the user in the design. Scottish Centre for the Environmental Design Research, Robert Gordon University (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bias, R., Mayhew, D.: Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age. Elsevier Science, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glende, S., Podtschaske, B., Friesdorf, W.: Senior user integration. In: Proceedings of the Second German Congress on Ambient Assisted Living. VDE, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ziefle, M., Bay, S.: How older adults meet cognitive complexity: aging effects on the usability of different cellular phones. Behav. Inf. Technol. 24(5), 375–389 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Röcker, C., Ziefle, M., Holzinger, A.: From computer innovation to human integration: current trends and challenges for pervasive health technologies. In: Holzinger, A., Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Pervasive Health, pp. 1–17. Springer, London (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Röcker, C.: Intelligent environments as a promising solution for addressing current demographic changes. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. (IJIMT) 4(1), 76–79 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaul, S., Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: Accounting for user diversity in the acceptance of medical assistive technologies. In: Proceedings of the Third International ICST Conference on Electronic Healthcare for the 21st Century (eHealth 2010) (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilkowska, W., Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: A small but significant difference: the role of gender on the acceptance of medical assistive technologies. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) HCI in Work & Learning, Life & Leisure, pp. 82–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ziefle, M.: Age perspectives on the usefulness on E-health applications. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Health Care Systems, Ergonomics, and Patient Safety (HEPS 2008), Strasbourg, France (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sackmann, R., Weymann, A.: Die Technisierung des Alltags – Generationen und technische Innovationen. Campus, Frankfurt (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart home technologies: insights into generation-specific acceptance motives. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) HCI and Usability for e-Inclusion, pp. 312–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Different perspectives on technology acceptance: the role of technology type and age. In: Holzinger, A., Miesenberger, K. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction for eInclusion, pp. 20–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Melenhorst, A.-S., Rogers, W.A., Bouwhuis, D.G.: Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychol. Aging 21(1), 190–195 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ziefle, M., Schaar, A.K.: Gender differences in acceptance and attitudes towards an invasive medical stent. Electron. J. Health Inform. 6(2), 1–18 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alagöz, F., Ziefle, M., Wilkowska, W., Calero Valdez, A.: Openness to accept medical technology – a cultural view. In: Holzinger, A., Simonic, K.-M. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 151–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer IOSB-INA & Institute Industrial IT (inIT)Ostwestfalen-Lippe University of Applied SciencesLemgoGermany

Personalised recommendations