Cited by 139Technology Use by Older AdultsPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionPatient Dignity and Privacy

Willingness of older adults to share data and privacy concerns after exposure to unobtrusive in-home monitoring

Open access
Boise, L., Wild, K., Mattek, N., Ruhl, M., Dodge, H.H., Kaye, J.·2013·Gerontechnology

Abstract

Older adult participants in the Intelligent Systems for Assessment of Aging Changes study (ISAAC) carried out by the Oregon Center for Aging and Technology (ORCATECH) were surveyed regarding their attitudes about unobtrusive home monitoring and computer use at baseline and after one year (n=119). The survey was part of a longitudinal study using in-home sensor technology to detect cognitive changes and other health problems. Our primary objective was to measure willingness to share health or activity data with one's doctor or family members and concerns about privacy or security of monitoring over one year of study participation. Differences in attitudes of participants with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) compared to those with normal cognition were also examined. A high proportion (over 72%) of participants reported acceptance of in-home and computer monitoring and willingness to have data shared with their doctor or family members. However, a majority (60%) reported concerns related to privacy or security; these concerns increased after one year of participation. Few differences between participants with MCI and those with normal cognition were identified. Findings suggest that involvement in this unobtrusive in-home monitoring study may have raised awareness about the potential privacy risks of technology. Still, results show high acceptance, stable over time, of sharing information from monitoring systems with family members and doctors. Our findings have important implications for the deployment of technologies among older adults in research studies as well as in the general community.

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 · 10.4017/gt.2013.11.3.001.00

Cites

32 of 32 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boise, L., Wild, K., Mattek, N., Ruhl, M., Dodge, H. H., & Kaye, J.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Venue
Gerontechnology
Published
2013-01-22
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
428-435
ISSN
  • 1569-1101 (ISSN-L)
  • 1569-111X
OpenAlex
W2045440422
Cited by
139
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
FWCI
19.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gerontechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • University of Oregon
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG024059, P30AG008017, P30AG024978, K01AG023014)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Dignity and Privacy
Keywords
older adults, home monitoring, non-intrusive monitoring, privacy concerns, data sharing, mild cognitive impairment, computer monitoring, health data sharing, technology acceptance

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