» Articles » PMID: 19964352

How Do Health Care Providers Perceive Technologies for Monitoring Older Adults?

Overview
Date 2009 Dec 8
PMID 19964352
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Monitoring and assistive technologies for the older adults, by sensing and recording activities and status, provide an objective record of a patient's functioning within natural environments. Yet the data derived from these technologies do not directly address the clinical aims of health care providers. We conducted focus groups with health care providers who work with older adults to elicit their perspectives on monitoring technologies. Identified themes centered around the benefits and risks of technologies, patient needs, the clinical utility of information, and specific monitoring domains that might improve the health care of older adults. Providers highlighted the primary importance of involving families and caregivers, and of sustaining human interactions. They explored the difficulties with how to use information for clinical ends, and challenged the notion that more objective information would automatically improve their heath care. Designers, developers, and researchers might improve the utility and uptake of health-related technologies for older adults and their families by eliciting the viewpoints of clinical providers.

Citing Articles

Attitudes and perspectives of older adults on technologies for assessing frailty in home settings: a focus group study.

Bian C, Ye B, Hoonakker A, Mihailidis A BMC Geriatr. 2021; 21(1):298.

PMID: 33964887 PMC: 8105977. DOI: 10.1186/s12877-021-02252-4.


An online self-care education program to support patients after total laryngectomy: feasibility and satisfaction.

Cnossen I, van Uden-Kraan C, Eerenstein S, Jansen F, Witte B, Lacko M Support Care Cancer. 2015; 24(3):1261-8.

PMID: 26306518 PMC: 4729815. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2896-1.


A systematic review of clinician and staff views on the acceptability of incorporating remote monitoring technology into primary care.

Davis M, Freeman M, Kaye J, Vuckovic N, Buckley D Telemed J E Health. 2014; 20(5):428-38.

PMID: 24731239 PMC: 4011427. DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0166.


A qualitative study of rural primary care clinician views on remote monitoring technologies.

Davis M, Currey J, Howk S, DeSordi M, Boise L, Fagnan L J Rural Health. 2014; 30(1):69-78.

PMID: 24383486 PMC: 3882331. DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12027.


Intelligent personal health record: experience and open issues.

Luo G, Tang C, Thomas S J Med Syst. 2011; 36(4):2111-28.

PMID: 21399913 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-011-9674-5.

References
1.
Beaudin J, Intille S, Morris M . To track or not to track: user reactions to concepts in longitudinal health monitoring. J Med Internet Res. 2007; 8(4):e29. PMC: 1794006. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8.4.e29. View

2.
Martin S, Kelly G, Kernohan W, McCreight B, Nugent C . Smart home technologies for health and social care support. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; (4):CD006412. PMC: 11186705. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006412.pub2. View

3.
Sandelowski M . Whatever happened to qualitative description?. Res Nurs Health. 2000; 23(4):334-40. DOI: 10.1002/1098-240x(200008)23:4<334::aid-nur9>3.0.co;2-g. View

4.
HARLOW H . Love in infant monkeys. Sci Am. 1959; 200(6):68-74. DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican0659-68. View

5.
De Bruin M, Hospers H, van den Borne H, Kok G, Prins J . Theory- and evidence-based intervention to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected patients in the Netherlands: a pilot study. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2005; 19(6):384-94. DOI: 10.1089/apc.2005.19.384. View