ArticlePloS one2022
Analyzing technology acceptance and perception of privacy in ambient assisted living for using sensor-based technologies.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sensor-Based Technologies for the Detection of Unwanted Loneliness in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Engaging Older Adults to Guide the Development of Passive Home Health Monitoring to Support Aging in Place.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Identifying Contextual Factors That Shape Cybersecurity Risk Perception for Assisted Living and Health Care Technologies and Wearables: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A Technology-Based Intervention to Support Older Adults in Living Independently: Protocol for a Cross-National Feasibility Pilot.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People increasingly use various technologies that enable them to ease their everyday lives in different areas. Not only wearable devices are gaining ground, but also sensor-based ambient devices and systems are increasingly perceived as beneficial in supporting users. Especially older and/or frail persons can benefit from the so-called lifelogging technologies assisting the users in different activities and supporting their mobility and autonomy. This paper empirically investigates users' technology acceptance and privacy perceptions related to sensor-based applications implemented in private environments (i.e., passive infrared sensors for presence detection, humidity and temperature sensors for ambient monitoring, magnetic sensors for user-furniture interaction). For this purpose, we designed an online survey entitled "Acceptance and privacy perceptions of sensor-based lifelogging technologies" and collected data from N = 312 German adults. In terms of user acceptance, statistical analyses revealed that participants strongly agree on the benefits of such sensor-based ambient technologies, also perceiving these as useful and easy to use. Nevertheless, their intention to use the sensor-based applications was still rather limited. The evaluation of privacy perceptions showed that participants highly value their privacy and hence require a high degree of protection for their personal data. The potential users assessed the collection of data especially in the most intimate spaces of domestic environments, such as bathrooms and bedrooms, as critical. On the other hand, participants were also willing to provide complete data transparency in case of an acute risk to their health. Our results suggest that users' perceptions of personal privacy largely affect the acceptance and successful adoption of sensor-based lifelogging in home environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.