Assistive technologies are relatively novel tools for research and daily care in long-term care (LTC) facilities that are faced with the burgeoning of the older adult population and dwindling staffing resources. The degree to which stakeholders in LTC facilities are receptive to the use of these technologies is poorly understood. Eighteen semi-structured focus groups and one interview were conducted with relevant groups of stakeholders at seven LTC facilities in southwestern Pennsylvania. Common themes identified across all focus groups centered on concerns for privacy, autonomy, cost, and safety associated with implementation of novel technologies. The relative importance of each theme varied by stakeholder group as well as the perceived severity of cognitive and/or physical disability. Our findings suggest that ethical issues are critical to acceptance of novel technologies by their end users, and that stakeholder groups are interdependent and require shared communication about the acceptance of these emerging technologies.
AgreeE. M.FreedmanV. A., & SenguptaM. (2004). Factors influencing the use of mobility technology in community-based long-term care. Journal of Aging and Health, 16(2), 267–307.
2.
BharuchaA. J.AnandV.ForlizziJ.DewM. A.ReynoldsC. F.StevensS., & WactlarH. (2009). Intelligent assistive technology applications to dementia care: Current capabilities, limitations, and future challenges. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17(2), 88–104.
3.
BrownA. R., & MulleyG. P. (1997). Do it yourself: Home-made aids for disabled elderly people. Disability and Rehabilitation, 19(1), 35–37.
4.
CheekP.NikpourL., & NowlinH. D. (2005). Aging well with smart technology. Nursing Administration Quarterly29(4), 329–338.
5.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Education and Psychological Measurement, 43(6), 37–46.
6.
DemirisG.SkubicM.RantzM.KellerJ.AudM.HenselB., & HeZ. (2006). Smart home sensors for the elderly: A model for participatory formative evaluation. Proceedings of the International Special Topic Conference on Information Technology Applications in Biomedicine (ITAB), Ioannina, Greece, October 26–28, 2006. Available at http://medlab.cs.uoi.gr/itab2006/proceedings/eHealth/145.pdf.
7.
DishmanE.MatthewsJ., & Dunbar-JacobJ. (2004). Everyday health: Technology for adaptive aging. In PewR. W. & Van HemelS. B. (Eds.), Technology for adaptive aging (pp. 179–209). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
8.
ErnstR. L.HayJ. W.FennC.TinklenbergJ., & YesavageJ. (1997). Cognitive function and the costs of Alzheimer disease. An exploratory study. Archives of Neurology, 54(6), 687–693.
9.
GlaserB. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.
10.
HanesboG., & KihlgrenM. (2001). Carers' reflections about their video-recorded interactions with patients suffering from severe dementia. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10(6), 737–747.
11.
HeW.SenguptaM.WelkoffV. A.DebarrosK. A. & U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). 65+ in the United States: 2005. Current Populations Reports: Special Studies, P23–209. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p23–209.pdf.
12.
HebertL. E.ScherrP. A.BieniasJ. L.BennettD. A., & EvansD. A. (2003). Alzheimer disease in the US population: Prevalence estimates using the 2000 census. Archives of Neurology, 60(8), 1119–1122.
13.
HoenigH.TaylorD. H., & SloanF. A. (2003). Does assistive technology substitute for personal assistance among the disabled elderly?American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 330–337.
14.
JohnsonN.DavisT., & BosanquetN. (2000). The epidemic of Alzheimer's disease: How can we manage the costs?Pharmacoeconomics, 18(3), 215–223.
15.
LansleyP.McCreadieC., & TinkerA. (2004). Can adapting the homes of older people and providing assistive technology pay its way?Age and Ageing, 33(6), 571–576.
16.
LehouxP., & BlumeS. (2000). Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 25(6), 1083–1120.
LoprestiE. F.MihailidisA., & KirschN. (2004). Assistive technology for cognitive rehabilitation: State of the art. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(1/2), 5–39.
19.
MagnussonL., & HansonE. J. (2003). Ethical issues arising from a research, technology and development project to support frail older people and their family carers at home. Health and Social Care in the Community, 11(5), 431–439.
20.
RietveldT. & van HoutR. (1993). Statistical Techniques for the Study of Language and Language Behaviour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
21.
RoweM.LaneS., & PhippsC. (2007). CareWatch: A home monitoring system for use in homes of persons with cognitive impairment. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 23(1), 3–8.
22.
SixsmithA.HineN.NeildI.ClarkeN.BrownS., & GarnerP. (2007a). Monitoring the well-being of older people. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 23(1), 9–23.
23.
SixsmithA.OrpwoodR., & TorringtonJ. (2007b). Quality of life technologies for people with dementia. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 23(1), 85–93.
24.
VredenburgK.IsenseeS., & RighiC. (2002). User-centered design: An integrated approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
