Introduction of Telecare Mediated Home Care Services Pushes Forward a Re-Delegation of the Cooperative Care Work

  • Anita WollEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9755)


In this paper, we apply activity theory as a theoretical framework to study conventional home care service practice versus telecare as a means for delivery of home care services. In doing so, we translate home care services into work activities to explore the cooperative nature between the nurses and the elderly care receivers. Findings indicate changes in how the cooperative care work are distributed when moving from conventional home care services to telecare mediated home care services. In our work, we conclude that introduction of new work practice results in increased delegation of responsibility and practical self-care activities to the elderly care receivers. Thus, telecare such as video consultation in the home is not appropriate for all elders. Nevertheless are those who mastery these responsibilities, rewarded with increased flexibility in their daily life activities since the delivery of services is more predictable and timely.


Home care Elders Telecare Work practice Self-care 



We thank all the participants who made it possible to carry out this study. We also thank the reviewers that gave constructive feedback for improvement of this paper. The authors also acknowledge the grant from Norwegian Research Council (NRC), project number 22201.


  1. 1.
    Ministry of Social services, NOU 1992:1 - Safety - Dignity – Care, Oslo (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daatland, S.O. og Otnes, B.: Housing oriented care: Trends, in S.O. Daatland(red.), Housing oriented elderly care. NOVA, Oslo (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ministry of Education and Research, NOU 2011:11 – Innovation in care. Ministry of Health and Care Services, Oslo (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joshi, S.G., Woll, A.: A collaborative change experiment: diagnostic evaluation of telecare for elderly home dwellers. In: Duffy, V.G. (ed.) DHM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9185, pp. 423–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21070-4_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Directorate of Health, Welfare technology. Technical report on the implementation of welfare technology in the municipal health - care systems 2013-2020. 5. Directorate of Health, Oslo (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ministry of Health and Care Services, Meld. St. 29 (2012-2013) - Tomorrow’s care, Oslo (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitzpatrick, G., Ellingsen, G.: A review of 25 years of CSCW research in healthcare: contributions, challenges and future agendas. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 22, 609–665 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I.: Moving healthcare to the home: the work to make homecare work. In: Bertelsen, O.W., Ciolfi, L., Grasso, M.A., Papadopoulos, G.A. (eds.) ECSCW 2013: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Paphos, Cyprus, 21–25 September 2013, pp. 143–162. Springer, London (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Procter, R., Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Sugarhood, P., Rouncefield, M., Hinder, S.: The day-to-day co-production of ageing in place. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 23, 245–267 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aaløkke, 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
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Leont’ev, A.N.: Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1978)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaptelinin, V.: Activity theory. In: Soegaard, M., Dam, R.F. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction 89 Design Foundation, Aarhus (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuutti, K.: The concept of activity as a basic unit of analysis. In: Bannon, L., Robinson, M., Schmidt, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 25–27 September 1991 (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leont’ev, A.: The problem of activity in psychology. Sov. Psychol. 13(2), 4–33 (1974)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B.: Activity Theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics. Morgan & Claypool, San Francisco (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koschmann, K.H.: The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for educations. Mind Cult. Act. 5(1), 25–42 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Engeström, Y.: Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J. Educ. Work 14(1), 133–156 (2001). RutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations