Advertisement

A Change Is Gonna Come

The Effect of User Factors on the Acceptance of Ambient Assisted Living
  • Patrick Halbach
  • Simon Himmel
  • Julia Offermann-van Heek
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10926)

Abstract

In the course of demographic change, an increasing proportion of older people in need of care pose enormous burdens for the care sectors of today’s society, which could dramatically aggravate in the next decades. Developing Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) technologies is one approach to support older people and people in need of care to live as long as possible independently at their own home. Besides technical opportunities and functions, future users’ acceptance is decisive for the success and long-term usage of innovative technologies. Thus, for AAL technologies it has to be explored which factors are crucial for acceptance and to what extent those factors differ with regard to diverse user groups. Referring to existing technology acceptance models (in particular the UTAUT2-model), it is questionable whether such models can be adapted and are appropriately usable for the context of AAL technologies. In this paper, we therefore investigate potential users’ attitudes towards AAL systems as well as the importance and relationships of technology-related and user-specific characteristics in a scenario-based online questionnaire study using an adapted and extended version of the UTAUT2-model. The undertaken adaption led to a better understanding of influencing factors for AAL acceptance: privacy concerns need to be addressed as an additional predictor. Regarding user factors, age, Attitude Towards Technology (ATT), and caregiving experience were revealed as influencing factors, whereas gender and health status did not show any effects on AAL acceptance.

Keywords

Ambient Assisted Living Technology acceptance UTAUT2 model User diversity Aging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank all participants for their openness to share opinions on a novel technology. This work was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research project Whistle (16SV7530).

References

  1. 1.
    Bloom, D., Canning, D.: Global Demographic Change: Dimensions and Economic Significance. Technical reprt w10817, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, October 2004Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shaw, J., Sicree, R., Zimmet, P.: Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 87, 4–14 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siewert, U., Fendrich, K., Doblhammer-Reiter, G., Scholz, R.D., Schuff-Werner, P., Hoffmann, W.: Health care consequences of demographic changes in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania. Deutsches Ärzteblatt Int. 107(18), 328–34 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheng, J., Chen, X., Shen, M.: A framework for daily activity monitoring and fall detection based on surface electromyography and accelerometer signals. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 17, 38–45 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Droghini, D., Principi, E., Squartini, S., Olivetti, P., Piazza, F.: Human fall detection by using an innovative floor acoustic sensor. In: Esposito, A., Faudez-Zanuy, M., Morabito, F.C., Pasero, E. (eds.) Multidisciplinary Approaches to Neural Computing. SIST, vol. 69, pp. 97–107. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56904-8_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baig, M.M., Gholamhosseini, H.: Smart health monitoring systems: an overview of design and modeling. J. Med. Syst. 37, 9898 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lutze, R., Waldhör, K.: Integration of stationary and wearable support services for an actively assisted living of elderly people: capabilities, achievements, limitations, prospects—a case study. In: Wichert, R., Mand, B. (eds.) Ambient Assisted Living. ATSC, pp. 3–26. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52322-4_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wichert, R., Furfari, F., Kung, A., Tazari, M.R.: How to overcome the market entrance barrier and achieve the market breakthrough in AAL. In: Wichert, R., Eberhardt, B. (eds.) Ambient Assisted Living. ATSC, pp. 349–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27491-6_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Inglehart, R.: Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abowd, G.D., Mynatt, E.D.: Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 7(1), 29–58 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silverstone, R., Morley, D., Dahlberg, A., Livingstone, S.: Families, technologies and consumption: the household and information and communication technologies (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cook, D.J., Das, S.K.: How smart are our environments? An updated look at the state of the art. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 3(2), 53–73 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siciliano, P., Marletta, V., Marletta, V., Monteriu, A.: Ambient Assisted Living. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18374-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Monekosso, D., Florez-Revuelta, F., Remagnino, P.: Ambient assisted living [Guest editors’ introduction]. IEEE Intell. Syst. 30(4), 2–6 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mathieson, K.: Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 2(3), 173–191 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams, M.D., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Lal, B.: Is UTAUT really used or just cited for the sake of it? A systematic review of citations of UTAUT’s originating article. In: ECIS, p. 231 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Smart home medical technologies: users’ requirements for conditional acceptance. i-com 15, 39–50 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ziefle, M.Z., Röcker, C., Holzinger, A.: Perceived usefulness of assistive technologies and electronic services for ambient assisted Living. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Or, C.K., Karsh, B.-T.: A systematic review of patient acceptance of consumer health information technology. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 16(4), 550–560 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilkowska, W., Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: A small but significant difference – the role of gender on acceptance of medical assistive technologies. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 82–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16607-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ziefle, M., Rocker, C., Holzinger, A.: medical technology in smart homes: exploring the user’s perspective on privacy, intimacy and trust, pp. 410–415. IEEE, July 2011Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Himmel, S., Zaunbrecher, B.S., Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M.: The youth of today designing the smart city of tomorrow. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2014, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8512, pp. 389–400. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07227-2_37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ajzen, I.: Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32(4), 665–683 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Heek, J., Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Helpful but Spooky? Acceptance of AAL-systems contrasting user groups with focus on disabilities and care needs, pp. 78–90. SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Heek, J., Himmel, S., Ziefle, M.: Caregivers’ Perspectives on Ambient Assisted Living Technologies in Professional Care Contexts. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on ICT for Aging well (ICT4AWE 2017), (Setúbal, Portugal). SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ware, J., Kosinski, M., Keller, S.D.: SF-12: How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales, 2nd edn. Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Demiris, G., Hensel, B.K., Skubic, M., Rantz, M.: Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for "smart home" sensor technologies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 24, 120–124 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    "Bildungsstand der Bevölkerung, Technical report, Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden, November 2015Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Steele, R., Lo, A., Secombe, C., Wong, Y.K.: Elderly persons’ perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78, 788–801 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Steinke, F., Ingenhoff, A., Fritsch, T.: Personal remote assistance in ambient assisted living-experimental research of elderly people’s trust and their intention to use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 30, 560–574 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gövercin, M., Meyer, S., Schellenbach, M., Steinhagen-Thiessen, E., Weiss, B., Haesner, M.: SmartSenior@home: acceptance of an integrated ambient assisted living system. Results of a clinical field trial in 35 households. Inform. Health Soc. Care 41(4), 1–18 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steinke, F., Bading, N., Fritsch, T., Simonsen, S.: Factors influencing trust in ambient assisted living technology: a scenario-based analysis. Gerontechnology 12, 81–100 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Steinke, F., Fritsch, T., Brem, D., Simonsen, S.: Requirement of AAL systems: older persons’ trust in sensors and characteristics of AAL technologies, p. 1. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Siegel, C., Hochgatterer, A., Dorner, T.: Contributions of ambient assisted living for health and quality of life in the elderly and care services - a qualitative analysis from the experts’ perspective of care service professionals. BMC Geriatr. 14(1), 112 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hong, S., Vincenzo, D.F., Ning, G., Chris, B.: The missing ones: Key ingredients towards effective ambient assisted living systems. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ. 2, 109–120 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M., Himmel, S.: Perceptions of personal privacy in smart home technologies: do user assessments vary depending on the research method? In: Tryfonas, T., Askoxylakis, I. (eds.) HAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9190, pp. 592–603. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20376-8_53CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Halbach
    • 1
  • Simon Himmel
    • 1
  • Julia Offermann-van Heek
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations