Perspectives of Older Adults and Informal Caregivers on Information Visualization for Smart Home Monitoring Systems: A Critical Review

  • Fangyuan ChangEmail author
  • Britt Östlund
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)


Although health monitoring systems in smart homes have been revealed as a significant tool to help people ageing in place, the density of data poses a challenge on the information visualization. This review aims to make contributions to find gaps in the field of information visualization regarding smart home monitoring for older people. Three kinds of information needs of older adults and their informal caregivers regarding smart home monitoring are categorized, including physical needs, emotional needs and cognitive needs. The research studies reflect that these needs are mainly used to discuss ideas of, design approaches for, the information visualization from ten aspects in the visceral level, behavioral level and reflective level. Results show that there is still a big gap existing in enabling older people and their informal caregivers to better understand smart home monitoring information. Some existing design recommendations can be improved while at the same time, some needs have not been manifested through information visualization. A wider understanding of older adults, informal caregivers and home living environment in all aspects are necessary.


Older adults Informal caregivers Smart home Visualization 


  1. 1.
    Chan A, Yasuhiko S, Robine J (2016) International perspectives on summary measures of population health in an aging world. J Aging Health 28(7):1119–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peter L (1991) A fresh map of life: the emergence of the third age. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratteteig T, Wagner I (2013) Moving healthcare to the home: the work to make homecare work. In: Proceedings of the 13th European conference on computer supported cooperative work. Springer, London, pp 143–162Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gram-Hanssen K, Darby S (2018) “Home is where the smart is”? Evaluating smart home research and approaches against the concept of home. Energy Res Soc Sci 37:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sixsmith J, Andrew J, Sixsmith J (1991) Transitions in home experience in later life. J Architect Plan Res 8(3):181–191Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fogel S (1992) Psychological aspects of staying at home. Generations 16(2):15–19Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    García-Herranz M, Haya P, Esquivel A, Montoro G, Alamán X (2008) Easing the smart home: semi-automatic adaptation in perceptive environments. J Univers Comput Sci 14(9):1529–1544Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mshali H, Lemlouma T, Moloney M, Magoni D (2018) A survey on health monitoring systems for health smart homes. Int J Ind Ergon 66:26–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demiris G, Rantz J, Aud M, Marek K, Tyrer H, Skubic M, Hussam A (2004) Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: a pilot study. Med Inform Internet Med 29(2):87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davey J (2006) “Ageing in place”: the views of older homeowners on maintenance, renovation and adaptation. Soc Policy J NZ 27:128Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demiris G, Hensel BK (2008) Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of “smart home” applications. Yearb Med Inform 3:33–40Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Majumder S, Aghayi E, Noferesti M, Memarzadeh-Tehran H, Mondal T, Pang Z, Deen J (2017) Smart homes for elderly healthcare—recent advances and research challenges. Sensors 17(11):2496–2503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, Miguel-Cruz A, Rincon A (2016) Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 91:44–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Fracasso F, Orlandini A, Turno M (2018) User needs and preferences on AAL systems that support older adults and their carers. J Ambient Intell Smart Environ 10(1):49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Golant S (2017) A theoretical model to explain the smart technology adoption behaviors of elder consumers (Elderadopt). J Aging Stud 42:56–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holden J, Carayon P, Gurses P, Hoonakker P, Hundt S, Ozok A, Rivera-Rodriguez J (2013) SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics 56(11):1669–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Le T, Reeder B, Chung J, Thompson H, Demiris G (2014) Design of smart home sensor visualizations for older adults. Technol Health Care 22(4):657–666Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le T, Reeder B, Thompson H, Demiris G (2013) Health providers’ perceptions of novel approaches to visualizing integrated health information. Methods Inf Med 52(3):250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gross T (2003) Ambient interfaces: design challenges and recommendations. In: 10th proceedings on human computer interaction: theory and practice, pp 68–72. CRC Press, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hawthorn D (2000) Possible implications of aging for interface designers. Interact Comput 12(5):507–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thomas J, Cook A (2006) A visual analytics agenda. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 26(1):10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bederson B, Shneiderman B (2003) The craft of information visualization: readings and reflections. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Memon M, Wagner R, Pedersen F, Beevi A, Hansen O (2014) Ambient assisted living healthcare frameworks, platforms, standards, and quality attributes. Sensors 14(3):4312–4341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Byrne C, Collier R, O’Grady M, O’Hare M (2016) User interface design for ambient assisted living systems. In: International conference on distributed, ambient, and pervasive interactions. Springer, Cham, pp 35–45Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kosara R, Hauser H, Gresh L (2003) An interaction view on information visualization. State-of-the-art report. In: Proceedings of EUROGRAPHICS 2003, pp 123–137. Wiley, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vermeulen J, Neyens C, Spreeuwenberg D, van Rossum E, Sipers W, Habets H, Hewson DJ, De Witte P (2013) User-centered development and testing of a monitoring system that provides feedback regarding physical functioning to elderly people. Patient Prefer Adher 7:843–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alexander L, Wakefield J, Rantz M, Skubic M, Aud MA, Erdelez S, Al Ghenaimi S (2011) Passive sensor technology interface to assess elder activity in independent living. Nurs Res 60(5):318–325Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lorenz A, Oppermann R (2009) Mobile health monitoring for the elderly: designing for diversity. Pervasive Mob Comput 5(5):478–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bock C, Demiris G, Choi Y, Le T, Thompson J, Samuel A, Huang D (2016) Engaging older adults in the visualization of sensor data facilitated by an open platform for connected devices. Technol Health Care 24(4):541–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berridge C (2015) Breathing room in monitored space: the impact of passive monitoring technology on privacy in independent living. Gerontologist 56(5):807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McNeill A, Briggs P, Pywell J, Coventry L (2017) Functional privacy concerns of older adults about pervasive health-monitoring systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments. ACM, Rhodes, pp 96–102Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boise L, Wild K, Mattek N, Ruhl M, Dodge H, Kaye J (2013) Willing-ness of older adults to share data and privacy concerns after exposure to unobtrusive in-home monitoring. Gerontechnology 11(3):428–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Coughlin F, D’Ambrosio A, Reimer B, Pratt R (2007) Older adult perceptions of smart home technologies: implications for research, policy & market innovations in healthcare. In: Engineering in medicine and biology society, 29th annual international conference of the IEEE. IEEE, Lyon, pp 1810–1815Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reeder B, Le T, Thompson HJ, Demiris G (2013) Comparing infor-mation needs of health care providers and older adults: findings from a wellness study. Stud Health Technol Inform 192:18–22Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jaschinski C, Allouch B (2017) Voices and views of informal caregivers: investigating ambient assisted living technologies. In: European conference on ambient intelligence. Springer, Cham, pp 110–123Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hwang S, Truong N, Mihailidis A (2012) Using participatory design to determine the needs of informal caregivers for smart home user interfaces. In: 6th International conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare. IEEE, San Diego, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Le T, Thompson J, Demiris G (2016) A comparison of health visualization evaluation techniques with older adults. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 36(4):67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Le T, Wilamowska K, Demiris G, Thompson H (2012) Integrated data visualisation: an approach to capture older adults’ wellness. Int J Electron Healthc 7(2):89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wild K, Boise L, Lundell J, Foucek A (2008) Unobtrusive in-home monitoring of cognitive and physical health: reactions and perceptions of older adults. J Appl Gerontol 27(2):181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyHuddingeSweden

Personalised recommendations