Background Digital health technologies are being increasingly developed with the aim of allowing older adults to maintain functional independence throughout the old age, a process known as healthy ageing. Such digital health technologies for healthy ageing are expected to mitigate the socio-economic effects of population ageing and improve the quality of life of older people. However, little is known regarding the views and needs of older people regarding these technologies. Aim The aim of this study was to explore the views, needs and perceptions of community-dwelling older adults regarding the use of digital health technologies for healthy ageing. Method Face-to-face, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with community-dwelling older adults (median age 79.6 years). The interview process involved both abstract reflections and practical demonstrations. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed according to inductive content analysis. Results Three main themes and twelve sub-themes addressing our study aim resulted from the data obtained. The main themes revolved around favorable views and perceptions on technology-assisted living, usability evaluations and ethical considerations. Conclusions Our study reveals a generally positive attitude towards digital health technologies as participants believed digital tools could positively contribute to improving their overall wellbeing, especially if designed in a patient-centered manner. Safety concerns and ethical issues related to privacy, empowerment and lack of human contact were also addressed by participants as key considerations.

The term Big Data is commonly used to describe a range of different concepts: from the collection and aggregation of vast amounts of data, to a plethora of advanced digital techniques designed to reveal patterns related to human behavior. In spite of its widespread use, the term is still loaded with conceptual vagueness. The aim of this study is to examine the understanding of the meaning of Big Data from the perspectives of researchers in the fields of psychology and sociology in order to examine whether researchers consider currently existing definitions to be adequate and investigate if a standard discipline centric definition is possible. Methods Thirty-nine interviews were performed with Swiss and American researchers involved in Big Data research in relevant fields. The interviews were analyzed using thematic coding. Results No univocal definition of Big Data was found among the respondents and many participants admitted uncertainty towards giving a definition of Big Data. A few participants described Big Data with the traditional "Vs" definition-although they could not agree on the number of Vs. However, most of the researchers preferred a more practical definition, linking it to processes such as data collection and data processing.

The latest Facebook data breach highlights the need for guidelines for internet‐mediated big‐data research.

Tremendous growth in the types of data that are collected and their interlinkage are enabling more predictions of individuals’ behavior, health status, and diseases. Legislation in many countries treats health-related data as a special sensitive kind of data. Today’s massive linkage of data, however, could transform “nonhealth” data into sensitive health data. In this paper, we argue that the notion of health data should be broadened and should also take into account past and future health data and indirect, inferred, and invisible health data. We also lay out the ethical and legal implications of our model.

On November 14 last year, the British Guardian published an account from an anonymous whistleblower at Google, accusing the company of misconduct in regard to handling sensitive health data. The whistleblower works for Project Nightingale, an attempt by Google to get into the lucrative US healthcare market, by storing and processing the personal medical data of up to 50 million customers of Ascension, one of America's largest healthcare providers. As the Wall Street Journal had already reported 3 days earlier, and as the whistleblower confirmed, neither was the data anonymized when transmitted from Ascension nor were patients or their doctors notified, let alone asked for consent to sharing their data with Google (Copeland, 2019; Pilkington, 2019). As a result, Google employees had full access to non‐anonymous patient health data. Google Health chief David Feinberg commented that all Google employees involved had gone through medical ethics training and were approved by Ascension (Feinberg, 2019).