The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Willingness of older adults to share data and privacy concerns after exposure to unobtrusive in-home monitoring
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Twelve studies presented results on IAT that were both accepted and used by the participants [19–21, 23, 27, 30–33, 42, 43, 45].”
From Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“In some cases users did not even mind being monitored by IAT if this was understood as a useful strategy to allow their physician to provide a better care [19].”
From Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules
Morris, J. C. (1993) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.43.11.2412-a · Cited by 9,882
Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity
Petersen, R. C. (2004) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01388.x · Cited by 7,864
Measurement of Functional Activities in Older Adults in the Community
PFEFFER, R. I., Kurosaki, T., Harrah, C. H., Chance, J. M., & Filos, S. (1982) · Journal of Gerontology · doi:10.1093/geronj/37.3.323 · Cited by 2,978
Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. (2006) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333 · Cited by 2,113
The Alzheimer's Disease Centers' Uniform Data Set (UDS)
Weıntraub, S., Salmon, D. P., Mercaldo, N. D., Ferris, S. H., Graff‐Radford, N. R., Chui, H. C., Cummings, J. L., DeCarli, C. S., Foster, N. L., Galasko, D. R., et al. (2009) · Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · doi:10.1097/wad.0b013e318191c7dd · Cited by 911
Smart homes — Current features and future perspectives
Chan, M., Campo, É., Esteve, D., & Fourniols, J.-Y. (2009) · Maturitas · doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.07.014 · Cited by 584
Elderly persons’ perception and acceptance of using wireless sensor networks to assist healthcare
Steele, R., Lo, A., Secombe, C., & Wong, Y. K. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.08.001 · Cited by 508
Technologies for an Aging Society: A Systematic Review of “Smart Home” Applications
Hensel, B. K., & Demiris, G. (2008) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1638580 · Cited by 451
Kaye, J. A., Maxwell, S. A., Mattek, N., Hayes, T. L., Dodge, H. H., Pavel, M., Jimison, H. B., Wild, K., Boise, L., & Zitzelberger, T. (2011) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq095 · Cited by 308
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review
Liu, L., Stroulia, E., Nikolaidis, I., Cruz, A. M., & Rincon, A. M. R. (2016) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.04.007 · Cited by 711
Acceptance and use of health information technology by community-dwelling elders
Fischer, S. H., David, D., Crotty, B. H., Dierks, M., & Safran, C. (2014) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.06.005 · Cited by 376
Wu, Y.-H., Ware, C., Damnée, S., Kerhervé, H., & Rigaud, A. (2015) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s72399 · Cited by 280
Ethical Design of Intelligent Assistive Technologies for Dementia: A Descriptive Review
Ienca, M., Wangmo, T., Jotterand, F., Kressig, R. W., & Elger, B. S. (2017) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9976-1 · Cited by 221
Ghorayeb, A., Comber, R., & Gooberman‐Hill, R. (2020) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102571 · Cited by 224
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC3604979
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Technology Use by Older Adults
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › 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
