OLDER ADULT WOMEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF ACTIVITY SENSORS
Background: Body-worn activity sensors and home-installed motion sensors are widely used in studies of physical activity with older adults. Technology acceptance is an important determinant of technology adoption if informatics-supported interventions are to translate from research settings to everyday living. However, older adult women’s perceptions of body-worn sensors remain largely unexplored in health-related research. Further, there are very few studies that characterize older adults’ perceptions of worn and installed activity sensors in the same study.
Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews to characterize technology perceptions of three different activity sensors with ten women between the ages of 57 and 70 (average age: 64.6 years) from March-April 2014. Interview questions were derived from the Technology Acceptance Model, a technology obtrusiveness framework, and investigator experience. During interviews, participants were presented with two different accelerometers (ActiGraphTM, worn on the waist; activPALTM, worn on the thigh) and a passive infrared motion sensor (X10 ActiveHomeTM, designed for residential installation). Each sensor was shown separately, its function explained, and participants were asked about their perceptions and potential issues related to technology use. Interviews were audio-recorded and lasted between 20-35 minutes. We conducted a preliminary analysis to identify themes related to technology acceptance, perceived usefulness, and privacy from transcribed interviews. Preliminary results are reported below.
Results: All participants perceived body-worn and installed sensors as acceptable for personal activity data collection. All participants noted that choice of body-worn or home-installed sensors would be highly dependent on lifestyle. Most participants observed a body-worn sensor would be more useful to them given their high levels of activities outside the home. For personal activity data sharing, participants had few concerns about giving access to family members or health care providers. However, some participants raised privacy issues related to potential unwanted disclosure of home activity levels due to perceived risk for break-ins or personal safety during sleep times. On this topic, one participant stated: “It’s nobody’s business whether I’m home or not.” Most participants identified potential challenges about remembering to wear, or properly wearing, a sensor in everyday life. Some participants noted that device aesthetics would play a role in whether they decided to wear a sensor out of the house. Participants varied in their reported desires to see their own activity data with preferences ranging from weekly, seasonally, or just twice a year.
Implications: This study is an early step toward understanding older adult women’s perceptions of different types of activity sensors to inform informatics interventions for independent living. Individual studies of body-worn or home-installed sensors show device acceptability with older adults. A fall detection study with a single 81-year-old male found the he preferred installed sensors over an accelerometer. Our preliminary results suggest healthy post-menopausal women prefer body-worn sensors to home-installed sensors in side-by-side comparison of devices.