The 'implementation' and use of smart home technology to lengthen independent living of non-instutionalized elderly have not always been flawless. The purpose of this study is to show that problems with smart home technology can be partially ascribed to differences in perception of the stakeholders involved. The perceptual worlds of caregivers, care receivers, and designers vary due to differences in background and experiences. To decrease the perceptual differences between the stakeholders, we propose an analysis of the expected and experienced effects of smart home technology for each group. For designers the effects will involve effective goals, caregivers are mainly interested in effects on workload and quality of care, while care receivers are influenced by usability effects. Making each stakeholder aware of the experienced and expected effects of the other stakeholders may broaden their perspectives and may lead to more successful implementations of smart home technology, and technology in general.
Background: To experience external objects in such a way that they are perceived as an integral part of one's own body is called embodiment. Wearable technology is a category of objects, which, due to its intrinsic properties (eg, close to the body, inviting frequent interaction, and access to personal information), is likely to be embodied. This phenomenon, which is referred to in this paper as wearable technology embodiment, has led to extensive conceptual considerations in various research fields. These considerations and further possibilities with regard to quantifying wearable technology embodiment are of particular value to the mobile health (mHealth) field. For example, the ability to predict the effectiveness of mHealth interventions and knowing the extent to which people embody the technology might be crucial for improving mHealth adherence. To facilitate examining wearable technology embodiment, we developed a measurement scale for this construct. Objective: This study aimed to conceptualize wearable technology embodiment, create an instrument to measure it, and test the predictive validity of the scale using well-known constructs related to technology adoption. The introduced instrument has 3 dimensions and includes 9 measurement items. The items are distributed evenly between the 3 dimensions, which include body extension, cognitive extension, and self-extension.Methods: Data were collected through a vignette-based survey (n=182). Each respondent was given 3 different vignettes, describing a hypothetical situation using a different type of wearable technology (a smart phone, a smart wristband, or a smart watch) with the purpose of tracking daily activities. Scale dimensions and item reliability were tested for their validity and Goodness of Fit Index (GFI). Results: Convergent validity of the 3 dimensions and their reliability were established as confirmatory factor analysis factor loadings45 (>0.70), average variance extracted values40 (>0.50), and minimum item to total correlations50 (>0.40) exceeded established threshold values. The reliability of the dimensions was also confirmed as Cronbach alpha and composite reliability exceeded 0.70. GFI testing confirmed that the 3 dimensions function as intercorrelated first-order factors. Predictive validity testing showed that these dimensions significantly add to multiple constructs associated with predicting the adoption of new technologies (ie, trust, perceived usefulness, involvement, attitude, and continuous intention). Conclusions: The wearable technology embodiment measurement instrument has shown promise as a tool to measure the extension of an individual's body, cognition, and self, as well as predict certain aspects of technology adoption. This 3-dimensional instrument can be applied to mixed method research and used by wearable technology developers to improve future versions through such things as fit, improved accuracy of biofeedback data, and customizable features or fashion to connect to the users' personal identity. Further research is recommended to apply this measurement instrument to multiple scenarios and technologies, and more diverse user groups.
By having a healthy and happy social life, social needs are fulfilled. When social needs are not fulfilled, loneliness and social isolation can occur, which have negative consequences for one’s physical and mental health. Social technology, technology that enables social interaction, can be a resource to fulfil the social needs of older people. In this study, we aimed to learn what role social technology plays in the social life of older people. We held 15 interviews with people aged over 70 who regularly use some form of social technology. Our results indicate that social technology plays different roles in the lives of older people. It strengthens the existing social relationships and social structures. It also brings depth and fun to the social contacts of older people and in this way, enriches their social lives. Social technology also gives a sense of safety and peace of mind to the older people themselves but also to their network members. However, there are barriers in the use of social technology. The older people struggled with using social technology and feel that social technology sometimes stands in the way of real human contact. In supporting and facilitating people’s relationship with others, a community and society, technology helps fulfil older people’s need for connectedness, meaningfulness and independence. However, the relationship with independence is ambiguous. Their life experience gives older people a thoughtful way of looking at social technology and the role it plays in their lives
