Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Satisfaction and use of personal emergency response systems

Zur Zufriedenheit und Nutzung von Hausnotrufsystemen

  • Beiträge zum Themenschwerpunkt
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Despite a wide distribution, little is known about the relationship between subscriber satisfaction and the extent of use or non-use of personal emergency response systems (PERS).

Objectives

To examine the degree of satisfaction with PERS, the wearing time and its use in case of a fall.

Study design and setting

Telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted with 52 elderly community-dwelling PERS users.

Results

PERS subscribers were very satisfied with their device; however, 24% of the participants reported that they never wear the alarm button, and only 14% wear it 24 hours each day. After falls PERS was not activated by 83% (n=11) of the subscribers who fell alone and lay on the floor longer than 5 minutes. None of the five different satisfaction measures and only the subscriber’s estimation of relevance of the PERS showed to be a significant predictor of PERS use in daily life.

Conclusions

High rates of non-use of PERS in everyday life and after falls can be found. Subscribers’ estimation of relevance but not satisfaction predicts the usage of PERS in everyday life. Further research is needed to better understand the reasons not using a PERS.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Trotz einer hohen Verbreitung der Hausnotrufsysteme ist der Zusammenhang zwischen der Zufriedenheit von Hausnotrufkunden und der Nutzung bzw. Nichtnutzung des Systems weitgehend unerforscht.

Ziel

Evaluation der Zufriedenheit von Hausnotrufkunden und der Nutzung des Hausnotrufsystems im Alltag sowie nach einem Sturz.

Studiendesign und Setting

Mit 52 Hausnotrufkunden wurde ein telefonisches oder persönliches Interview geführt.

Ergebnisse

Hausnotrufkunden waren mit ihrem System sehr zufrieden. Allerdings berichteten 24% der Studienteilnehmer, den Notrufsender nie zu nutzen, und nur 14% trugen ihn immer bei sich. Von den Hausnotrufnutzern, die allein gestürzt waren und länger als 5 Minuten am Boden lagen, aktivierten 83% (n=11) ihren Hausnotruf nicht. Nur die Einschätzung der Wichtigkeit, aber keines der fünf verschiedenen Zufriedenheitsmaße erwies sich als signifikanter Prädiktor für die Nutzung des Hausnotrufs im Alltag.

Schlussfolgerungen

Es zeigte sich, dass das Hausnotrufgerät im Alltag und nach einem Sturz häufig nicht genutzt wird. Nur die Einschätzung der Bedeutsamkeit des Hausnotrufs und nicht die Zufriedenheit mit dem Gerät sagt dessen Nutzung im Alltag voraus. Weitere Untersuchungen sind nötig, um die Gründe der Nichtnutzung besser zu verstehen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Avlund K, Kreiner S, Schulz-Larsen K (1996) Functional ability scales for the elderly. A validation study. Eur J Public Health 6:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bernstein M (2000) Low-tech personal emergency response systems reduce costs and improve outcomes. Manag Care Q 8:38–43

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bundesverband Hausnotruf (2010) http\\:www.bv-hausnotruf.de, cited April 29, 2010

  4. Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW, Hui SL et al (2002) Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subject for clinical research. Med Care 40:771–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Celler B, Lovell NH, Chan DK (1999) The potential impact of home telecare on clinical practice. Med J Aust 171:518–521

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Constien J, Wetzel E (2002) Hausnotruf ermöglicht mehr Sicherheit zu Hause. Pro Alter 1:60–65

    Google Scholar 

  7. CrockerL, Algina J (1986) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Holt, Rhinehart, Winston, New York

  8. Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 13:319–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B (1996) Development of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 8:3–13

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B (2000) Item analysis of the Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assist Technol 12:96–105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B (2000) Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology: QUEST version 2.0. The Institute for Matching Person & Technoloy, Inc., Webster, USA

  12. Dibner AS (1990) Personal emergency response systems: communication technology aids elderly and their families. J Appl Genet 9:504–510

    Google Scholar 

  13. Doughty K, Cameron K, Garner P (1996) Three generations of telecare of the elderly. J Telemed Telecare 2:71–80

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fallis WM, Silverthorne D, FranklinJ et al (2007) Client and responder perceptions of a personal emergency response system: Lifeline. Home Health Care Serv Q. 26:1–21

  15. Fleming J, Brayne C (2008) Inability to get up after falling, subsequent time on floor and summoning help: prospective cohort study in people over 90. BMJ 337:a2227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gitlin L, Schemm R, Landsberg L et al (1996) Factors predicting assistive device use in the home by older people following rehabilitation. J aging health 8:554–575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoyl MT, Alessi CA, Harker JO et al (1999) Development and testing of a five items version of the Geriatric Depression Scale. J Am Geriatr Soc 47:873–878

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Levine DA, Tideiksaar R (1995) Personal emergency response systems: factors associated with use among older persons. Mt Sinai J Med 62:293–297

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mann W, Goodall S, Justiss MD et al (2002) Dissatisfaction and Non-use of Assistive Devices among frail elders. Assist Technol 14:130–139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mann WC, Belchior P, Tomita MR et al (2005) Use of personal emergency response systems by older individuals with disabilities. Assist Technol 17:82–88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marx J (2006) Fünfundzwanzig Jahre DRK-Hausnotruf. Eine Dokumentation. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Generalsekretariat

  22. Oliver R (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Mol Recognit 17:460–469

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roman K (2002) Technik im Alltag von Senioren. Arbeitsbericht zu vertiefenden Auswertungen der sentha – Repräsentativerhebung. Teilprojekt Sozialwissenschaften (DZFA, BIS) der interdisziplinären Forschergruppe sentha, Heidelberg

  24. Roush RE, Teasdale TA (1995) Impact of a personal emergency response system on hospital utilization by community-residing elders. South Med J 88:917–922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ruchlin HS, Morris JN (1981) Cost-benefit analysis of an emergency alarm and response system: a case study of a long-term care program. Health Serv Res 16:65–80

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sherwood S, Morris JN (1980) A study of the effects of an emergency alarm and response system for the aged: a final report. Grant No. HS01788, National Center for Health Services Research

  27. Spreng RA, MacKenzie SB, Olshavsky RW (1996) A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. JM 60:15–32

    Google Scholar 

  28. Szajna B (1996) Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Manage Sci 42:85–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vincent C, Reinharz D, Deaudelin I et al (2006) Public telesurveillance service for frail elderly living at home, outcomes and cost evolution: a quasi experimental design with two follow-ups. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:4–41

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wixom BH, Todd PA (2005) A Theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. ISR 16:85–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen, Deutschland

    B. Heinbüchner & M. Hautzinger

  2. Klinik für Geriatrische Rehabilitation, Robert-Bosch-Krankenhaus, Auerbachstr. 110, 70376, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    C. Becker & K. Pfeiffer Dipl.-Psych.

Authors
  1. B. Heinbüchner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Hautzinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Pfeiffer Dipl.-Psych.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Pfeiffer Dipl.-Psych..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heinbüchner, B., Hautzinger, M., Becker, C. et al. Satisfaction and use of personal emergency response systems. Z Gerontol Geriat 43, 219–223 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-010-0127-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-010-0127-4

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation