Advertisement

Bridging the User Barriers of Home Telecare

  • Anita WollEmail author
  • Jim Tørresen
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1069)

Abstract

Scarce healthcare resources and a growing older population are pushing forward a need to transform elderly care arrangements into becoming more technology-enabled in the private homes. This paper present findings from an action research study where the participants tested telecare as a service for remote delivery of selected homecare services. The telecare solution was applied either by the participants’ own television or using a modern tablet. However, several user barriers were experienced when the participants tested telecare in their everyday life. Thus, the telecare solution was rejected after end of pilot study. We found that the technical telecare solution was not enough supportive, especially during the days when the participants for various reasons not were able to perform the necessary preparation, the “invisible work” or behind the scene work ahead of the consultation. In previous research literature, the notion of the invisible work has mostly been used as theoretical lenses understanding formal care work. The move of assistive technologies into the home of the elderly people create a need to re-shape partakers in the elderly care work – whereas elderly care receivers also are active involved in the care arrangements. Moreover, the technology platform used for supporting elderly people should be design in a way that both support them in the visible work (the actual task the technology is set to support) and the invisible work (all the extra work to make it work) if we aim to better succeed in transforming pilot studies into sustainable care services.

Keywords

Home telecare Elderly people User barriers Invisible work Workarounds Robotics 

References

  1. 1.
    Woll, A., Bratteteig, T.: A trajectory for technology-supported elderly care work. In: Schmidt, K. (ed.) Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 28, no. 1–2, pp. 127–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2019)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woll, A., Bratteteig, T.: Activity theory as a framework to analyze technology-mediated elderly care. In: Nardi, B. (ed.) Mind, Culture and Activity, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 6–21. Taylor and Francis (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NOU: Ministry of Education and Research - NOU 2011:11 – Innovation in care, Ministry of Health and Care Services, Oslo (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jerant, A.F., Azari, R., Nesbitt, T.S.: Reducing the cost of frequent hospital admissions for congestive heart failure: a randomized trial of a home telecare intervention. Med. Care. 39(11), 1234–1245 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barlow, J., Singh, D., Bayer, S., Curry, R.: A systematic review of the benefits of home telecare for frail elderly people and those with long-term conditions. J. Telemed. Telecare 13(4), 172–179 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Integrating Community Equipment Services Telecare. Getting Started. Department of Health (2004). http://www.integratedcarenetwork.gov.uk/
  7. 7.
    Proctor, P., Wherton, P., Greenhalgh, J.: Hidden work and the challenges of scalability and sustainability in ambulatory assisted living. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2(25), 11–26 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenhalgh, T., Proctor, R., Sugarhood, P., Hinder, S., Rouncefield, M.: What is quality in assistive living technology. the ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services. BMC Med. 13, 1–15 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Procter, R., Wherton, J., Greenhalgh, T., Sugarhood, P., Rouncefield, M., Hinder, S.: Telecare call centre work and ageing in place. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 25(1), 79–105 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farshchian, A., Vilarinho, T., Mikalsen, M.: From episodes to continuity of care: a study of a call center for supporting independent living. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 26, 309–343 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roberts, C., Mort, M.: Reshaping what counts as care: older people, work and new technologies. ALTER – Eur. J. Disabil. Res. 3(2), 138–158 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitzpatrick, G., Huldtgreen, A., Malmborg, L, Harley D., Ijsselsteijn, W.: Design for agency, adaptivity and reciprocity: reimagining AAL and telecare agendas. In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 305–337 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aaløkke Ballegaard, S., Bunde-Pedersen, J., Bardram, J.E.: Where to roberta? Reflecting on the role of technology in assisted living. In: Proceedings of NordiChi, pp. 373–376 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitzpatrick, G., Ellingsen, G.: A review of 25 years of CSCW research in healthcare: contributions, challenges and future agendas. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (CSCW) 22(4–6), 609–665 (2013). J. Collaborative Comput. Work Pract.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grönvall, E., Lundberg, S.: On challenges designing the home as a place for care. In: Holzinger, A., Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Pervasive Health. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Culén, A.L., Bratteteig, T.: Touch-screens and elderly users: a perfect match? In: Miller, L. et al. (eds.): ACHI 2013. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, Nice, France, 24 February – 1 March 2013. IARIA XPS Press, pp. 460–465 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Häikiö, J., Wallin, A., Isomursu, M., Ailisto, H., Matinmikko, T., Huomo, T.: Touch-based user interface for elderly users. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 289–296. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heart, T., Kalderon, E.: Older adults: are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? Int. J. Med. Inform. 82(11), 209–231 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alaoui, M., Lewkow, M., Seffah, A.: Increasing elderly social relationships through TV-based services. In: Luo, G., Liu, J. (eds.) IHI 2012. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium, Miami, Florida, USA, 28–30 January 2012, pp. 13–20. ACM Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dewsbury, G., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I., Onditi, V., Bagnall, P.: Designing technology with older people. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 6(2), 207–217 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grönvall, E., Verdezoto, N.: Beyond self-monitoring understanding non-functional aspects of home-based healthcare technology. In: Mattern, F., Santini, S. (eds.) UbiComp 2013. Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, Zurich, Switzerland, 8–12 September 2013, pp. 587–596. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Axelrod, L., Fitzpatrick, G., Burridge, J.H., Mawson, S.J., Smith, P.P., Rodden, T., Ricketts, I.W.: The reality of homes fit for heroes: design challenges for rehabilitation technology at home. J. Assistive Technol. 3(2), 35–43 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Siek, K.A., Khan, D.U., Ross, S.E., Haverhals, L.M., Meyers, J., Cali, S.R.: Designing a personal health application for older adults to manage medications: a comprehensive case study. J. Med. Syst. 35(5), 1099–1112 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dalgaard, L.G., Grönvall, E., Verdezoto, N.: MediFrame: a tablet application to plan, inform, remind and sustain older adults medication intake. In: Yang, C.C., Ananiadou, S. (eds.): ICHI 2013. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics, pp. 36–45. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Milligan, C., Roberts, C., Mort, M.: Telecare and older people: who cares where? Soc. Sci. Med. 72(3), 347–354 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Joshi, S.G., Woll, A.: A collaborative change experiment: telecare as a means for delivery of home care services. In: Design, User Experience, and Usability. User Experience Design for Everyday Life Applications and Services. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8519, pp. 141–151 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joshi, S.G., Woll, A.: A collaborative change experiment: diagnostic evaluation of telecare for elderly home dwellers. In: Digital Human Modeling. Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management: Ergonomics and Health, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9185, pp. 423–434 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Joshi, S.G., Woll, A.: A collaborative change experiment: post-experiment evaluation of home telecare for elderly home dwellers. In: Ahram, T., Karwowski, W., Schmorrow, D. (eds.) AHFE 2015. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE), Las Vegas, USA, 26–30 July 2015. Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 3, pp. 82–89 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Woll, A.: Is aging the new disease? In: Miller, L. et al. (ed.) ACHI 2016. Proceedings the 9th International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, Venice, Italy, 24 – 28 April 2016. IARIA XPS Press, pp. 21–28 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Woll, A.: Use of welfare technology in elderly care. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Oslo. Oslo: Department of informatics, University of Oslo (2017). http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-58321
  31. 31.
    Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Hinder, S., Proctor, R., Stones, R.: What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc. Sci. Med. 93, 86–94 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Doyle, J., Bailey, C., Scanaill, C.: Lessons learned in deploying independent living technologies to older adults’ homes. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 13(2), 191–204 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goodman-Deane, J., Lundell, J.: HCI and the older population. Interact. Comput. 17(6), 613–620 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Compagna, D., Kohlbacher, F.: The limits of participatory technology development: the case of service robots in care facilities for older people. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 93, 19–31 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Clemensen, J., Larsen, S.B.: Cooperation versus coordination: using real-time telemedicine at the home of diabetic foot ulcers. J. Telemed. Telecare 13, 32–35 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Loe, M.: Comfort and medical ambivalence in old age. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 93, 141–146 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Blythe, M.A., Monk, A.F., Doughty, K.: Socially dependable design: the challenge of ageing populations for HCI. Interact. Comput. 17(6), 672–689 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miyazaki, M., Sano, M., Mitsuya, S., Sumiyoshi, H., Naemura, M., Fujii, A.: Development and field trial of a social TV system for elderly people. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8010, pp. 171–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carmichael, A., Newell, A.F., Morgan, M.: The efficacy of narrative video for raising awareness in ICT designers about older users’ requirements. Interact. Comput. 19(5–6), 587–596 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    O’Neill, S.A., et al.: Development of a technology adoption and usage prediction tool for assistive technology for people with dementia. Interact. Comput. 26(2), 169–176 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weiner, M.F., Rossetti, H.C., Harrah, K.: Videoconference diagnosis and management of Choctaw Indian dementia patients. Alzheimer’s Dement. 7(6), 562–566 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Baunstrup, M., Larsen, L.B.: Elderly’s barriers and requirements for interactive TV. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8010, pp. 13–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aaløkke Ballegaard, S., Hansen, T., Kyng, M: Healthcare in everyday life: designing healthcare services for daily life. In: CHI 2008, Proceeding of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1807–1816 (2008)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nardi, B., Engeström, Y.: A web on the wind: the structure of invisible work. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 8, 1–8 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bowes, A., McColgan, G.: Telecare for older people: promoting independence, participation, and identity. Res. Aging 35(1), 32–49 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations