Some non-technology implications for wider application of robots assisting older people

Health Care and Informatics Review Online

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2010, Pages

  Tiwari, Priyesh ^a   Warren, Jim ^a   Day, Karen J ^a   McDonald, Bruce ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954871749     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11764201     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Scott RE, Chowdhury MFU, Varghese S. Telehealth policy: looking for global complementarity. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2002;8:55-7.
2. Grundy E. The epidemiology of aging. Brocklehurst's textbook of geriatric medicine and gerontology Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. 2003:3-20.
3. Brownsell S, Bradley D, Porteus J. Assistive technology and telecare: forging solutions for independent living. Policy Press; 2003.
4. Gibson D. Aged care: old policies, new problems. Cambridge University Press; 1998.
5. Magnusson L, Hanson E, Borg M. A literature review study of information and communication technology as a support for frail older people living at home and their family carers. Technology and Disability. 2004;16(4):223-35.
6. Bowles KH, Baugh AC. Applying research evidence to optimize telehomecare. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2007;22(1):5.
7. Hirsch T, Forlizzi J, Hyder E, Goetz J, Kurtz C, Stroback J, editors. The ELDer project: social, emotional, and environmental factors in the design of eldercare technologies; 2000. ACM New York, NY, USA.
8. Faucounau V, Wu YH, Boulay M, Maestrutti M, Rigaud AS. Caregivers' requirements for in-home robotic agent for supporting community-living elderly subjects with cognitive impairment. Technology and Health Care. 2009;17(1):33-40.
9. Elizabeth Boradbent RT, Bruce McDonal, Karen Day, Ngaire kerse, Anna Patience, Brett Knock Acceptability of healthcare robots in a retirement village. 2008.
10. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 1994.
11. Koch S. Meeting the challenges--the role of medical informatics in an ageing society. Studies in health technology and informatics. 2006;124:25-31.
12. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(01):9-16.
13. Peter G, Alan FN, Mary Z. Designing for dynamic diversity: interfaces for older people. Proceedings of the fifth international ACM conference on Assistive technologies; 2002; Edinburgh, Scotland. ACM; 2002.
14. Pascale Lehoux JS-ALR. The use of technology at home: what patient manuals say and sell vs. what patients face and fear. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2004;26(5):617-44.
15. Bosser Ma. Intelligent Behaviour in Animals and robots. MIT Press; 1993.
16. Wessels R, Dijcks B, Soede M, Gelderblom GJ, De Witte L. Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technology and Disability. 2003;15(4):231-8.
17. Fazzi R, Ashe T, Doak L. Telehealth and technology in home care: part I. Insights from the Philips National Study on the Future of Technology and Telehealth in Home Care. Caring. 2007;26(7):6-7.
18. Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive technology: the official journal of RESNA. 1993;5(1):36.
19. Will Taggart ST, Cory D. Kidd. An Interactive Robot in a Nursing Home: Preliminary Remarks Program in Science, Technology, and Society: MIT press; 2005.
20. Hansson S. The Ethics of Enabling Technology. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2007;16(03):257-67.
21. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academy Press; 2000.
22. Liebovitz D. Health Care Information Technology: A Cloud Around the Silver Lining? Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 25, 2009;169(10):924-6.
23. Berger RG, Kichak JP. Computerized physician order entry: helpful or harmful? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2004;11(2):100-3.
24. Boissy P, Corriveau H, Michaud F, Labonte D, Royer MP. A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. 2007;13(2):79.
25. Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2004;11(2):104-12.
26. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science. 2000;46(2):186-204.
27. Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians'use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23(2):116-26.
28. Young DW. What makes doctors use computers?: discussion paper. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1984;77(8):663.
29. Lu YC, Lee JK, Xiao Y, Sears A, Jacko JA, Charters K, editors. Why don't physicians use their personal digital assistants; 2003.
30. Chismar WG, Wiley-Patton S, editors. Does the extended technology acceptance model apply to physicians; 2003.
31. Patrick YKC, Paul JH. Examining a Model of Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: An Exploratory Study. J Manage Inf Syst. 2002;18(4):191-229.
32. Khalil K, Marinos T, Zahir I. Evaluating the Adoption of Enterprise Application Integration in Health-Care Organizations. J Manage Inf Syst. 2006;22(4):69-108.
33. Ville H, Dario A, Mikael C. IT and Institutional Constraints: Effects of Legal and Administrative Constraints to Use IT in Production of Health Care Services Focus on Finland. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'03) Track 6 Volume 6; 2003. IEEE Computer Society; 2003.
34. Anonymous. Audit commission report on assistive technologies. London: NHS; 2004. Report No.: ISBN 186240 464 Contract No.: Document Number|.
35. Cobb F. Lessons learned from three interorganizational health care information systems. Information & Management. 2000;37(6):311-21.
36. Elrod PD, Tippett DD. The 'death valley' of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2002;15(3):273-91.
37. Heeks R, Mundy D, Salazar A. Why health care information systems succeed or fail. Information systems for public sector management. Working paper series 9. Manchester: Institute for Development Policy Management; 1999.
38. Hammer M, Champy JA. Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. New York: HarperBusiness; 2001.
39. Bresnahan TF, Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM. Information Technology, Workplace Organization, and the Demand for Skilled Labor: Firm-Level Evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2002;117(1):339-76.
40. Nilsson NJ. Artificial intelligence, employment, and income. AI Magazine. 1984;5(2):5-14.
41. Leape LL, Berwick DM. Five Years After To Err Is Human: What Have We Learned? JAMA. 2005 May 18, 2005;293(19):2384-90.
42. Ellison LM, Pinto PA, Kim F, Ong AM, Patriciu A, Stoianovici D, et al. Telerounding and patient satisfaction after surgery. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2004;199(4):523-30.
43. Eger MS, Godkin RL, Valentine SR. Physicians' adoption of information technology: a consumer behavior approach. Health Mark Q. 2001;19(2):3-21.
44. Treister NW. Physician acceptance of new medical information systems: the field of dreams. Physician Exec. 1998;24(3):20-4.
45. Welsh F. Informatics: a physician's view. J Health Care Finance. 1997;23(3):37-43.
46. Day K, Norris AC, editors. Supporting information technology across health boards in New Zealand: the role of learning in adapting to complex change. The Eleventh International Sympsium on Health Information Management Research (iSHIMR); 2006 17 July 2006; Halifax, Canada.
47. Sutherland SR. With respect to old age: Long term care-rights and responsibilities. Stationery Office; 1999.
48. Quigley G, Tweed C. Cost benefit analysis for assistive technologies. Belfast Queens University. 1999.
49. van der Loo RP, van Gennip EM, Bakker AR, Hasman A, Rutten FF. Evaluation of automated information systems in health care: an approach to classifying evaluative studies. Computer Methods & Programs in Biomedicine. 1995;48 (1 -2):45 -52.
50. European Union. eInclusion Policy for Ageing. 2008 [updated 2008; cited]; Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/policy/age ing/launch/index_en.htm.
51. UK Department of Health. Carers at the heart of 21st century families and communities: a caring system on your side, a life of your own. London: Crown; 2008 [updated 2008; cited]; Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/Publicati onsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_085345.
52. NEHTA. National e-Health Strategy. 2008.
53. Australia New Zealand Telehealth Committee. A methodology for telehealth evaluation in Australia. Adelaide:; 2000.
54. Scott RE, Jennett P, Yeo M. Access and authorisation in a Global e-Health Policy context. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2004;73(3):259-66.
55. Hasegawa T, Murase S. Distribution of telemedicine in Japan. Telemedicine journal and e-health: the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association. 2007;13(6):695-702.