Consumer feedback on smart home applications

Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 60-72

  Johnson, Jessica L ^a   Davenport, Rick ^a   Mann, William C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Activities of daily living; Assisted living; Assistive technology; Gerontologic care; Smart technology

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; CONTENT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; GERIATRIC CARE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; SELF EVALUATION; SOCIAL SECURITY; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

EID: 33846960119     PISSN: 08827524     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00013614-200701000-00009     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. National center for health statistics. Health, United States, 2005: With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; 2005.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Department of Labor. Career Guide to Industries: Health Care. 2006-2007 ed. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm. Accessed March 8, 2006.
3. Bayer A, Harper L. Fixing to Stay: A National Survey of Housing and Home Modification Issues. Washington, DC: AARP; 2000.
4. Tinker A, Lansley P. Introducing assistive technology into the existing homes of older people: feasibility, acceptability, costs and outcomes. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(S1):1-3.
5. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. (2004). Older Americans 2004: Key Indicators of Well-being. Available at: http://www. agingstats.gov/chartbook2004/healthstatus.html#Indicator%2019. Accessed March 8, 2006.
6. Ostchenga Y, Harris T, Hirsch R, Parsons V, Kington R. The prevalence of functional limitations and disability in older persons in the U.S.: data from the national health and nutrition examination survey III. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(9):1132-1135.
7. Kinsella K, Velkoff VA. An Aging World: 2001. Series P95/01-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2001.
8. Russell JN, Hendershot GE, LeClere F, Howie LJ, Adler M. Trends and Differential Use of Assistive Technology Devices: United States, 1994. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics; 1997. Advanced Data No. 292.
9. US Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Technological change and the US older population. Technology and Aging in America. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment; 1985:chap 1. Report OTA-BA-264.
10. National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research. National Database of Assistive Technology Information (ABLEDATA). Silver Springs, Md: Marco International, Inc; 2004.
11. Sonn U, Grimby G. Assistive devices in an elderly population studied at 70 and 76 years of age. Disabil Rehabil. 1994;16:85-92.
12. Mann WC, Hurren D, Tomita M. Comparison of assistive device use and needs of home-based older persons with different impairments. Am J Occup Ther. 1993;47:980-987.
13. Krakowsky L, Finlayson M. Factors affecting older adults' use of adaptive equipment: review of the literature. Am J Occup Ther. 2001;55(3):303-310.
14. Edwards N, Jones D. Ownership and use of assistive devices amongst older people in the community. Age Ageing. 1998;27:463-468.
15. Mann WC, Llanes C, Justiss M, Tomita M. Frail older adults' self-report of their most important assistive device. Occup Ther J Res. 2004;24(1):4-12.
16. Mann WC, Ottenbacher KJ, Fraas L, Tomita M, Granger CV. Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:210-217.
17. Hartke R, Prohaska T, Furner S. Older adults and assistive device use: use, multiple-device use, and need. J Aging Health. 1998;10(1):99-116.
18. Tomita M, Mann WC, Fraas L, Burns L. Racial differences of frail elders in assistive technology. Assist Tech. 1997;9(2):140-151.
19. Mathieson KM, Kronenfeld JJ, Keith VM. Maintaining functional independence in elderly adults: the roles of health status and financial resources in predicting home modifications and use of mobility equipment. Gerontologist. 2002;42(1):24-31.
20. Verbrugge L, Sevak P. Use, type, and efficacy of assistance for disability. J Gerontol Soc Sci. 2002;57B(6):S366-S379.
21. Roelands M, Van Oost P, Buysse A, Depoorter A. Awareness among community dwelling elderly of assistive devices for mobility and self-care and attitudes towards their use. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1441-1451.
22. Agree E, Freedman V. A comparison of assistive technology and personal care in alleviating disability and unmet need. Gerontologist. 2003;43(3):335-344.
23. Hoenig H, Taylor D, Sloan F. Does assistive technology substitute for personal assistance among the disabled elderly? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(2):330-337.
24. Allen S, Foster A, Berg K. Receiving help at home with the interplay of humans and technological assistance. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2001;56:S374-S382.
25. Agree EM, Freedman VA, Cornman JC, Wolf D, Marcotte JE. Reconsidering substitution in longterm care: when does assistive technology take the place of personal care? J Gerontol Soc Sci. 2005;60B(5):S272-S280.
26. Stefanov DH, Bien Z, Bang WC. The smart house for older persons and persons with physical disabilities: structure, technology arrangements, and perspectives. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2004;12(2):228-250.
27. Allen B. An integrated approach to smart house technology for people with disabilities. Med Eng Phys. 1996;18(3):203-206.
28. Rantz MJ, Marek KD, Aud M, et al. A technology and nursing collaboration to help older adults age in place. Nurs Outlook. 2005;53:40-45.
29. Demeris G, Rantz M, Aud M, et al. Older adults' attitudes towards and perceptions of smart home technologies: a pilot study. Med Inform. 2004; 29(2):87-94.