| Title |
A Review of Contemporary Work on the Ethics of Ambient Assisted Living Technologies for People with Dementia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-014-9552-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Novitzky, Alan F. Smeaton, Cynthia Chen, Kate Irving, Tim Jacquemard, Fiachra O’Brolcháin, Dónal O’Mathúna, Bert Gordijn |
| Abstract |
Ambient assisted living (AAL) technologies can provide assistance and support to persons with dementia. They might allow them the possibility of living at home for longer whilst maintaining their comfort and security as well as offering a way towards reducing the huge economic and personal costs forecast as the incidence of dementia increases worldwide over coming decades. However, the development, introduction and use of AAL technologies also trigger serious ethical issues. This paper is a systematic literature review of the on-going scholarly debate about these issues. More specifically, we look at the ethical issues involved in research and development, clinical experimentation, and clinical application of AAL technologies for people with dementia and related stakeholders. In the discussion we focus on: (1) the value of the goals of AAL technologies, (2) the special vulnerability of persons with dementia in their private homes, (3) the complex question of informed consent for the usage of AAL technologies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 216 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 14% |
| Researcher | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 16% |
| Unknown | 50 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 27 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 27 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 10% |
| Engineering | 20 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 51 | 23% |
| Unknown | 57 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,057,216
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#680
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,601
of 231,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.