Upload
john-vines
View
199
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Slides for my talk accompanying our UbiComp 2013 paper 'Making Family Care Work: Dependency, Privacy and Remote Home Monitoring Telecare Systems'. The paper and talk focused on a field-trial of a remote monitoring system designed to allow family members to remotely 'check-in' on their older relatives who lived on their own. The paper picks apart many of the trust and privacy issues of the system, and unravels the problems the system poses for older peoples independence. Full paper can be accessed here: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2493432.2493469&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE&CFID=380590099&CFTOKEN=64685270
Citation preview
Making Family Care Work:
Dependence, Privacy and Remote Home Monitoring
Telecare Systems
John Vines1, Stephen Lindsay2, Gary W. Pritchard1, Mabel Lie1, David Greathead1,
Patrick Olivier1 and Katie Brittain1
1 Culture Lab, Newcastle University2 Fit Lab, Swansea University
ageing in place
Living within one’s own community—with some level of independence—rather than entering residential care for as long
as possible in later life.
(Fange and Ivanoff)
technology & ageing in place
Trip and fall monitoring (Nehmer et al.)
Medication reminders (McGee-Lennon et al.)
Remote monitoring for:care teams (Richie et al.)
volunteer carers (Consolvo et al.)
concerned relatives (Rowan et al.)
our ‘local’ context
Move away from ‘formal’ care provision to ‘informal’ care provided by volunteers
(mostly families and friends)
Less technology and equipment provided by the state – more emphasis on private
purchases and consumer systems – likely to be purchased by relatives
Safe Home Living system [SHeL]
‘SHel’Safe Home Living
‘Shel’ kit
Wireless PIR sensors; GPRS hub
‘Less Than Emergency’
Shel infrastructure
Carerecipient
Caregiver
Secure server
Action
study designInstalled in homes of 21 participants (17
completed trial) aged 66 to 91 years.
11 family caregivers participated as ‘monitorers’
Interviews before installation, during installation and at end of trial
Focus on the experience of the system from the older adults perspective with a view to how it
impacts upon existing care relationships
Thematic analysis [1] of transcript data
findings
motivations for using SHel
balancing privacy, control and risk
vulnerability and independence
presence and absence
findings:motivations for using SHeL
“With her being on her own you just don’t know what could happen. I worry about the fact that if you haven’t rang her that day or none of us have rang her that day.”
(Betty’s daughter) “She might stop phoning me asking what I’ve been up to each evening”
(Robert, pre-int.)
findings:privacy, control & risk
“I occasionally do stay overnight [at a friend’s] [...] it just crops up and I’ll say right I’m off and I certainly wouldn’t ring [daughter] to let her know that I was going ... it’s none of her business.”
(Robert, install-int.) “was very, very helpful to think that my daughter who’s a good hour’s drive away could tell which room I was in and if I was in a room too long – she would ring up anyway to say‘what are you doing in there so long’ if it was the bathroom say”
(Sarah, exit-int.)
“I think I possibly do feel a bit safer when it’s in because you know if anything happened in that month [it was installed], I would be found.”
(Betty, exit-int.)
“it [was] just one step down from making you dependent on somebody […] it takes away your perception of independence”
(Reg, exit-int.)
findings:vulnerability & independence
“I think it’s quite reassuring to know that it’s working [...] I think it should be visible at some point [...] when I walked in the kitchen and walked past the fridge I could see out of the corner of my eye this thing [the main hub] go like that [flashing] I wasn’t aware of that in any of the other rooms but when I went in the kitchen it reassured me that it was still working”
(Janet, exit-int.)
“Tell you the truth I forget it’s there.”
(Carole, exit- int.)
findings:presence & absence
design recommendations
#1 Present activity data to those being monitored
design recommendations
#1 Present activity data to those being monitored
#2 Control over how activity is presented to others
design recommendations
#1 Present activity data to those being monitored
#2 Control over how activity is presented to others
#3 Feedback on the frequency of being monitored
#1 Present activity data to those being monitored
#2 Control over how activity is presented to others
#3 Feedback on the frequency of being monitored
#4 Reassuring caregivers through explicit interaction
design recommendations
Thank you!
Any questions?
This research was performed as part of TSB funded project ‘SHel’ and partly supported by the TSB ALIP 3 and 4 project ‘SALT’