Cited by 180Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTechnology Use by Older AdultsUsability and User Interface Design

Defining Obtrusiveness in Home Telehealth Technologies: A Conceptual Framework

Open access
Hensel, B. K., Demiris, G., Courtney, K. L.·2006·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

The literature of home telehealth technology recommends that systems be designed to minimize their obtrusiveness to end users. However, this term is neither explicitly defined nor consistently used. This paper presents a definition of the concept of obtrusiveness. Within this definition, twenty-two categories of what may be perceived as obtrusive in home telehealth technology are proposed based on a review of the literature. These categories are grouped into eight dimensions. This effort represents an initial step toward developing measures of obtrusiveness associated with home telehealth technology. A validated and reliable instrument would allow for evaluation of individual applications as well as theory-building across applications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1197/jamia.m2026

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Monitoring technologies can create a psychological disturbance, sometimes called obtrusiveness, expressed in a feeling of being watched.

    “Monitoring technologies can create a psychological disturbance, sometimes called obtrusiveness (Hensel et al. 2006;Nefti et al. 2010), expressed in a feeling of 'being watched'.”

    From Ethics of the health-related internet of things: a narrative review (2017) · cites this paper as Hensel et al. 2006

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gitlin LN. Why older people accept or reject assistive technol- ogy. Generations 1995;19(1):41-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hensel, B. K., Demiris, G., & Courtney, K. L.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Hensel, B. K.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2006-07-01
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
428-431
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2755367690
Cited by
180
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
obtrusiveness, user experience, conceptual framework, home health care, patient-centered design
MeSH terms
Attitude to Health, Humans, Medical Informatics Applications, User-Computer Interface, Telemedicine, Privacy

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