Home care technology through an ability expectation lens

Gregor Wolbring, Bonnie Lashewicz, Gregor Wolbring, Bonnie Lashewicz

Abstract

Home care is on the rise, and its delivery is increasingly reliant on an expanding variety of health technologies ranging from computers to telephone "health apps" to social robots. These technologies are most often predicated on expectations that people in their homes (1) can actively interact with these technologies and (2) are willing to submit to the action of the technology in their home. Our purpose is to use an "ability expectations" lens to bring together, and provide some synthesis of, the types of utility and disadvantages that can arise for people with disabilities in relation to home care technology development and use. We searched the academic databases Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO ALL, IEEE Xplore, and Compendex to collect articles that had the term "home care technology" in the abstract or as a topic (in the case of Web of Science). We also used our background knowledge and related academic literature pertaining to self-diagnosis, health monitoring, companionship, health information gathering, and care. We examined background articles and articles collected through our home care technology search in terms of ability expectations assumed in the presentation of home care technologies, or discussed in relation to home care technologies. While advances in health care support are made possible through emerging technologies, we urge critical examination of such technologies in terms of implications for the rights and dignity of people with diverse abilities. Specifically, we see potential for technologies to result in new forms of exclusion and powerlessness. Ableism influences choices made by funders, policy makers, and the public in the development and use of home health technologies and impacts how people with disabilities are served and how useful health support technologies will be for them. We urge continued critical examination of technology development and use according to ability expectations, and we recommend increasing incorporation of participatory design processes to counteract potential for health support technology to render people with disabilities technologically excluded and powerless.

Keywords: ability expectation; ableism; health care technology; health information gathering; home care; home care technology; participatory design; people with disabilities; sensor devices and platforms; social robotics.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Gottlieb LM. Learning from Alma Ata: the medical home and comprehensive primary health care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2009 May;22(3):242–6. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2009.03.080195.
    1. Simonsen-Rehn N, Laamanen R, Sundell J, Brommels M, Suominen S. Determinants of health promotion action in primary health care: comparative study of health and home care personnel in four municipalities in Finland. Scand J Public Health. 2009 Jan;37(1):4–12. doi: 10.1177/1403494808096171.
    1. Berenson RA, Hammons T, Gans DN, Zuckerman S, Merrell K, Underwood WS, Williams AF. A house is not a home: keeping patients at the center of practice redesign. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008;27(5):1219–30. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1219.
    1. Caplan A. Minn. hospital bets home care will cut outpatient surgery LOS. Healthc Syst Strategy Rep. 1995 Jul 7;12(14):11.
    1. Benjamin AE. An Historical Perspective on Home Care Policy. The Milbank Quarterly. 1993;71(1):129. doi: 10.2307/3350277.
    1. Wolbring G, Leopatra V. Sensors: Views of Staff of a Disability Service Organization. JPM. 2013 Feb 22;3(1):23–39. doi: 10.3390/jpm3010023.
    1. Wolbring G. HTA Initiative #23 The triangle of enhancement medicine, disabled people,the concept of health: a new challenge for HTA. health research, and health policy. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) webpage: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR); 2005. [2011-01-29]. .
    1. Andersen R, Newman JF. Societal and Individual Determinants of Medical Care Utilization in the United States. Milbank Quarterly. 2005 Dec;83(4):Online-only. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00428.x.
    1. Chaudhry B. Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care. Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 16;144(10):742. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125.
    1. Swan M. Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009 Feb;6(2):492–525. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6020492.
    1. Dvorsky G. The quantified self: 6 tools to help you get started. [2014-06-01]. .
    1. Wolf G. The quantified self. TED; [2014-06-01]. .
    1. Blaze Carlson K. The National Post. 2010. Oct 02, [2014-06-09]. The quantified self
    1. Bloss CS, Ornowski L, Silver E, Cargill M, Vanier V, Schork NJ, Topol EJ. Consumer perceptions of direct-to-consumer personalized genomic risk assessments. Genet Med. 2010 Sep;12(9):556–66. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181eb51c6.
    1. Guttmacher AE, McGuire AL, Ponder B, Stefánsson K. Personalized genomic information: preparing for the future of genetic medicine. Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Feb;11(2):161–5. doi: 10.1038/nrg2735.
    1. Keller MA, Gordon ES, Stack CB, Gharani N, Sill CJ, Schmidlen TJ, Joseph M, Pallies J, Gerry NP, Christman MF. Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative: a prospective study of the utility of personalized medicine. Personalized Medicine. 2010 May;7(3):301–317. doi: 10.2217/pme.10.13.
    1. Wolbring G. Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. 2008 Mar;21(1):25–40. doi: 10.1080/13511610802002189.
    1. Wolbring G. Expanding Ableism: Taking down the Ghettoization of Impact of Disability Studies Scholars. Societies. 2012 Jul 06;2(4):75–83. doi: 10.3390/soc2030075.
    1. Albrecht GL. Encyclopedia of disability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub; 2006.
    1. Miller P, Parker S, Gillinson S. Disablism. How to tackle the last prejudice. London, UK: Demos; 2004.
    1. Wolbring G. Ecohealth through an ability studies and disability studies lens. In: Gislason MK, editor. Ecological Health: Society, Ecology and Health. London, UK: Emerald; 2013. pp. 91–107.
    1. Coughlin JF. Old Age, New Technology, and Future Innovations in Disease Management and Home Health Care. Home Health Care Management & Practice. 2006 Apr 01;18(3):196–207. doi: 10.1177/1084822305281955.
    1. Bundorf MK, Wagner TH, Singer SJ, Baker LC. Who searches the internet for health information? Health Serv Res. 2006 Jun;41(3 Pt 1):819–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00510.x.
    1. Baker L, Wagner TH, Singer S, Bundorf MK. Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey. JAMA. 2003 May 14;289(18):2400–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.18.2400.
    1. Fox S. Online Health Search. Pew Internet and American Life project: Pew Research Centre; 2006. [2014-06-09]. .
    1. Mary Brophy Marcus USA Today. 2009. Dec 07, [2014-06-09]. Here's to your health searches, via AOL and Google engines .
    1. Fox S, Jones S. Pew Internet and Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Centre; 2011. [2014-06-09]. The social life of health information .
    1. Ontario Home Care Association An Introduction to Home Care. [2014-06-01]. .
    1. Stankovic JA, Cao Q, Doan T, Fang L, He Z, Kiran R, Lin S, Son S, Stoleru R, Wood A. Conference Proceedings: High Confidence Medical Device Software and Systems (HCMDSS) Workshop. [2014-06-01]. Wireless sensor networks for in-home healthcare: Potential and challenges .
    1. García-Sáez G, Hernando ME, Martínez-Sarriegui I, Rigla M, Torralba V, Brugués E, de Leiva A, Gómez EJ. Architecture of a wireless Personal Assistant for telemedical diabetes care. Int J Med Inform. 2009 Jun;78(6):391–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.003.
    1. Yumakulov S, Yergens D, Wolbring G. Imagery of people with disabilities within social robotics research. ICSR, LNAI; International Conference on Social Robotics; 29-31 October, 2012; Chengdu, China. 2012. pp. 168–177.
    1. Schitai A. Ableism and inequality online: Analysis of Web accessibility policymaking and implementation in higher education. Long Beach, CA: University of California, Irvine and California State University; 2008.
    1. Tiwari P, Warren J, Day KJ, McDonald B. Health Care and Informatics Review Online. 2010. [2014-06-01]. Some non-technology implications for wider application of robots assisting older people .
    1. Demiris G, Rantz M, Aud M, Marek K, Tyrer H, Skubic M, Hussam A. Older adults' attitudes towards and perceptions of "smart home" technologies: a pilot study. Med Inform Internet Med. 2004 Jun;29(2):87–94. doi: 10.1080/14639230410001684387.
    1. Clark J, McGee-Lennon M. A stakeholder-centred exploration of the current barriers to the uptake of home care technology in the UK. Journal of Assistive Technologies. 2011;5(1):12–25. doi: 10.5042/jat.2011.0097.
    1. Connolly BH. General Effects of Aging on Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation. 1998;13(3):1–18. doi: 10.1097/00013614-199803000-00003.
    1. Pruchno RA, Patrick JH, Burant CJ. Aging Women and Their Children with Chronic Disabilities: Perceptions of Sibling Involvement and Effects on Well-Being. Family Relations. 1996 Jul;45(3):318. doi: 10.2307/585504.
    1. Weeks LE, Nilsson T, Bryanton O, Kozma A. Current and future concerns of older parents of sons and daughters with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 2009;6(3):180–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-1130.2009.00222.x.
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2012 Jul 19;:-. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x.
    1. Millen L, Cobb S, Patel H. Participatory design approach with children with autism. International Journal on Disability and Human Development. 2011;10(4):289–294. doi: 10.1515/IJDHD.2011.048.
    1. Alper M, Hourcade JP, Gilutz S. Interactive technologies for children with special needs. 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children; June 12-15, 2012; Bremen, Germany. 2012.
    1. Hussain S, Sanders EB. Fusion of horizons: Co-designing with Cambodian children who have prosthetic legs, using generative design tools. CoDesign. 2012 Mar;8(1):43–79. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2011.637113.
    1. Wolbring G, Diep L, Yumakulov S, Ball N, Yergens D. Social Robots, Brain Machine Interfaces and Neuro/Cognitive Enhancers: Three Emerging Science and Technology Products through the Lens of Technology Acceptance Theories, Models and Frameworks. Technologies. 2013 Jun 10;1(1):3–25. doi: 10.3390/technologies1010003.
    1. Mooney LR, Lashewicz B. Voices of care for adults with disabilities and/or mental health issues in Western Canada: what do families and agencies need from each other? Health Soc Care Community. 2014 Mar;22(2):178–86. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12074.
    1. BOOTH T, BOOTH W. Sounds of Silence: Narrative research with inarticulate subjects. Disability & Society. 1996 Mar;11(1):55–70. doi: 10.1080/09687599650023326.
    1. Rice M, Newell A, Morgan M. Forum Theatre as a requirements gathering methodology in the design of a home telecommunication system for older adults. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2007 Jul;26(4):323–331. doi: 10.1080/01449290601177045.
    1. Goodman CA, Jimison HB, Pavel M. Participatory design for home care technology. 24th Annual Conference and the Annual Fall Meeting of the Biomedical Engineering Society EMBS/BMES Conference; October 23-26, 2002; Houston, TX. 2002. pp. 23–26.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren