An Acceptability Study Of A Personal Portable Device Storing Critical Health Information To Ensure Treatment Continuity Of Home-Dwelling Older Adults In Case Of A Disaster

References

• Kaniasty K, Norris F. Social support in the aftermath of disasters, catastrophes, and acts terrorism: altruistic, overwhelmed, uncertain, antagonistic, and patriotic communities. Bioterrorism. 2004;3:200–229.
   Google Scholar
• Camus P, Arenas F, Lagos M, Romero A. Visión histórica de la respuesta a las amenazas naturales en Chile y oportunidades de gestión del riesgo de desastre. Rev Geogr Norte Gd. 2016;64:9–20. doi:10.4067/S0718-34022016000200002
   Google Scholar
• Brain R, Mora I. Chile pre y post catástrofe: algunas claves para aproximarse a los desafíos de reconstrucción En: Emergencia y reconstrucción: El antes y después del terremoto y tsunami del 27F en Chile. Aprendizajes en materia habitacional, urbana y de seguros. Santiago: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; 2012:11–38.
   Google Scholar
• Barush A. Disaster, vulnerability, and older adults: toward social work response. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2011;54:347–350. doi:10.1080/01634372.2011.58282121547826
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cloyd E, Dyer CB. Catastrophic events and older adults. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2010;22(4):501–513.21095558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aljabri D, Dumitrascu A, Burton MC, et al. Patient portal adoption and use by hospitalized cancer patients: a retrospective study of its impact on adverse events, utilization, and patient satisfaction. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):70.30053809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2000: Health Systems: Improving Performance. World Health Organization; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Audrefoy J. Desastres y cultura: una aproximación teórica. Revista INVI. 2007;22(60):133–165. Available from: http://revistainvi.uchile.cl/index.php/INVI/article/view/283/928 AccessedAugust 1, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Parmar P, Arii M, Kayden S. Learning from Japan: strengthening US emergency care and disaster response. Health Aff. 2013;32(12):2172–2178.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomio J, Sato H. Emergency and disaster preparedness for chronically ill patients: a review of recommendation. Emerg Med. 2004;6:69–79.
   Google Scholar
• Bitterman N. Design of medical devices—a home perspective. Eur J Intern Med. 2011;22(1):39–42. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2010.09.01721238891
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demiris G, Hensel BK. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of “smart home” applications. Yearb Med Inform. 2008;17(1):33–40. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1638580
   Google Scholar
• van Den Berg MEL, Maeder AJ. Consumer wearable information and health self management by older adults. Telehealth Our Ageing Soc. 2018;246:42.
   Google Scholar
• Puri A, Kim B, Nguyen O, Stolee P, Tung J, Lee J. User acceptance of wrist-worn activity trackers among community-dwelling older adults: mixed method study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2017;5(11):e173. doi:10.2196/mhealth.821129141837
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney EL, Mahoney DF. Acceptance of wearable technology by people with Alzheimer’s disease: issues and accommodations. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2010;25(6):527–531. doi:10.1177/153331751037694420702501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JA, Choi M, Lee SA, Jiang N. Effective behavioral intervention strategies using mobile health applications for chronic disease management: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12911-018-0683-x29458358
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demiris G, Afrin LB, Speedie S, et al. Patient-centered applications: use of information technology to promote disease management and wellness. A white paper by the AMIA knowledge in motion working group. J Am Med Inform. 2008;15(1):8–13. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos JC, Pedrosa T, Costa C, Oliveira JL. Modelling a portable personal health record. Healthinf Third International Conference on Health Informatics, Valencia, Spain. INSTICC–Institute for Systems and Technologies of Information, Control and Communication; 2010:465–468.
   Google Scholar
• Kharrazi H, Chisholm R, VanNasdale D, Thompson B. Mobile personal health records: an evaluation of features and functionality. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(9):579–593. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.04.00722809779
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushniruk AW, Borycki EM, Kuwata S, Kannry J. Emerging approaches to usability evaluation of health information systems: towards in-situ analysis of complex healthcare systems and environments. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:915–919.21893879
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwartz SR, Clouse K, Yende N, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of a mobile phone-based case management intervention to retain mothers and infants from an option B+ program in postpartum HIV care. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(9):2029–2037. doi:10.1007/s10995-015-1715-025656728
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westergaard RP, Genz A, Panico K, et al. Acceptability of a mobile health intervention to enhance HIV care coordination for patients with substance use disorders. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2017;12(1):11. doi:10.1186/s13722-017-0076-y28441962
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fearis K, Petrie A. Best practices in early phase medical device development: engineering, prototyping, and the beginnings of a quality management system. Surgery. 2017;161(3):571–575. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.05228190507
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harte R, Quinlan LR, Glynn L, et al. A multi-stage human factors and comfort assessment of instrumented insoles designed for use in a connected health infrastructure. J Pers Med. 2015;5(4):487–508. doi:10.3390/jpm504048726694468
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davis FD. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results [ Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1985
   Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Mis Q. 1989;13:319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma Q, Liu L. The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings. J Organ End User Com. 2004;16(1):59–72. doi:10.4018/JOEUC
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Mis Q. 2012;36(1):157–178. doi:10.2307/41410412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn JS, Aulakh V, Bosworth A. What it takes: characteristics of the ideal personal health record. Health Aff. 2009;28(2):369–376. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.369
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stronge AJ, Rogers WA, Fisk AD. Human factors considerations in implementing telemedicine systems to accommodate older adults. J Telemed Telecare. 2007;13(1):1–3. doi:10.1258/135763307779701158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGinn C, Grenier S, Duplantie J, et al. Comparison of user groups’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. McGinn et al. BMC Med. 2011;9:46. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-4621524315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charness N, Best R, Evans J. Supportive home health care technology for older adults: attitudes and implementation. Gerontechnology. 2016;15(4):233. doi:10.4017/gt.2016.15.4.000.0029033700
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Canales M, Peinado A; Grupos de discusión in Delgado M and Gutiérrez J. Métodos y técnicas cualitativas de investigación en ciencias sociales. Síntesis; 1995:287–316.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan DM, Barker LM. Human factors in the development and implementation of telerehabilitation systems. J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(2):55–58. doi:10.1258/jtt.2007.00704018348747
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demiris G, Rantz MJ, Aud MA, et al. Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’technologies: a pilot study. Med Inform Internet Med. 2004;29(2):87–94. doi:10.1080/14639231041000168438715370989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey JA, Skelton DA, Chastin SF. Acceptability of novel life logging technology to determine context of sedentary behavior in older adults. AIMS Public Health. 2016;3(1):158. doi:10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.15829546154
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mihailidis A, Cockburn A, Longley C, Boger J. The acceptability of home monitoring technology among community-dwelling older adults and baby boomers. Assistive Technol. 2008;20(1):1–12. doi:10.1080/10400435.2008.10131927
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thilo FJ, Bilger S, Halfens RJ, Schols JM, Hahn S. Involvement of the end user: exploration of older people’s needs and preferences for a wearable fall detection device–a qualitative descriptive study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:11. doi:10.2147/PPA.S13479228053509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung J, Thompson HJ, Joe J, Hall A, Demiris G. Examining Korean and Korean American older adults’ perceived acceptability of home-based monitoring technologies in the context of culture. Inform Health Soc Care. 2017;42(1):61–76. doi:10.3109/17538157.2016.116024427100664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaudhuri S. Examining the feasibility and acceptability of a fall detection device [ dissertation]. University of Washington Libraries; 2015.
   Google Scholar