Use of Personal Emergency Response Systems by Older Individuals With Disabilities
Open accessAbstract
This article describes how older persons perceive and use personal emergency response systems (PERSs), including issues related to device design, and report reasons for nonuse of PERSs. Data for this study were collected through a semistructured questionnaire that included fixed and open-ended response questions. Six hundred six participants 60 years and older were surveyed. Descriptive statistics were used to report sample characteristics. The most often-stated reason for using a PERS was related to concerns with falling (40% of responses). Asked how a PERS has been helpful, 75.6% of participants expressed an enhanced feeling of security with their PERS. Lack of perceived need (57.0% of responses), cost (37.0%), and lack of knowledge of the device (23.7%) were the most frequently stated reasons for not using a PERS. This study found that, while PERSs provide benefits for many elders, there appear to be many older persons who could benefit who do not have one. Only 16% of participants in this study, all of whom had disabilities, used a PERS.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Wearable personal emergency response (PER) systems are the mainstream solution for allowing frail and isolated individuals to call for help in an emergency.
“Wearable personable emergency response (PER) systems are the mainstream solution for allowing frail and isolated individuals to call for help in an emergency.”
From Making Emergency Calls More Accessible to Older Adults Through a Hands-free Speech Interface in the House (2019) · cites this paper as Mann et al., 2005
The paper describes PERS users wearing a help button that contacts a monitoring center, and the Discussion says older people living alone or in isolated housing may need such a system to call for help. It does not establish that PERS is the mainstream solution; the Discussion instead calls it underused and reports that only 16% of participants used one. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Berstein, M. (2000). "Low-tech" personal emergency response system , reduce costs and improve outcomes. Man aged Care Quarterly, 8, 38-43.
- Brainsky, A, Glick, H., Lydick, E., Epstein, R, Fox, K. M., Hawkes, W., et al. (1997). The economic cost of hip fractures in community-dwelling older adults : A prospective st udy. Journal of th e American Geriatrics Society, 45, 281-287.
- Levine, D., & Tideiksaar, R (1995). Personal emergency re- sponse systems: Factors associated with use among older persons . Mount Sinai Journal of Medi cine, 62, 293-297.
- Mann, W. (1997). Common telecommunication s technology for promoting safety, independence, and social int eraction for older people with disability. Generati ons, 21(3), 28-29.
- Roush, R E., Teasdale, T. A , Murph y, J . N., & Kirk, M. S. (1995). Impact of a personal emergen cy response system on hospital utilization by community-residing elders . S outhern Medical Journal 88, 917-923 .
- Sattin, R W., Lambert Huber, D. A , De Vito, C. A., Rodriguez, J . G., Ros, A., Bacchelli, S., et al. (1990). The incidence offall injury events among th e elderly in a defined population . American Journal of Ep idemiology, 131, 1028-1037 .
- Sherman, F. T. (2001). A fall lands close to home. Geriatr ics, 56(3), 11-15.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Technology Adoption by Older Adults: Findings From the PRISM Trial
Mitzner, T. L., Savla, J., Boot, W. R., Sharit, J., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Rogers, W. A. (2019) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gny113 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
Young, V., & Mihailidis, A. (2010) · Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/10400435.2010.483646 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Advances in Personal Emergency Response and Detection Systems
Hessels, V., Le Prell, G. S., & Mann, W. C. (2011) · Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/10400435.2011.588989 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationVacher, M., Aman, F., Rossato, S., Portet, F., & Lecouteux, B. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3310132 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Young, V., Rochon, E., & Mihailidis, A. (2016) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s12984-016-0207-9 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mann, W. C., Belchior, P., Tomita, M. R., & Kemp, B. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida Health (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Venue
- Assistive Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-03-31
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 82-88
- ISSN
- 1040-0435 (ISSN-L)
- 1949-3614
- OpenAlex
- W2002575246
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Assistive Technology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
- Keywords
- personal emergency response systems, older adults with disabilities, technology adoption, device design, fall prevention, perceived security, cost barriers, assistive technology use
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Consumer Behavior, Data Collection, Emergency Medical Service Communication Systems, Equipment Design, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
