Accessible Housing and Health-Related Quality of Life: Measurements of Wellbeing Outcomes Following Home Modifications

Carnemolla, Phillippa; Bridge, Catherine

doi:10.26687/archnet-ijar.v10i2.977

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a strong focus on the role of the built environment (housing) and support or care provision in the architectural, sociological and gerontological aging-in-place research (Bayer & Harper, 2000;Judd, Olsberg, Quinn, Groenhart, & Demirbilek, 2010), and can directly infuence weelbeing and health related quality of life (Carnemolla & Bridge, 2016). Interestingly, this focus has not translated across to IoT literature related to Ageing in Place.…”

Section: Broadening the Focus Identifying The Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ageing in place and the internet of things – how smart home technologies, the built environment and caregiving intersect

Carnemolla

2018

Vis. in Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smart technologies and the Internet of Things (IoT), have the potential to play a significant role in enabling older people to age in place. Although there has been substantial development of new applications of sensor technology in the home, this has tended to be tele-health focused, and there has been less work done on the role of IoT and ageing in place that more broadly considers caregiving and the built environment. Research in the field of IoT development and evaluation has recognised a number of challenges and limitations associated with past smart technology developments to support Ageing in Place, calling for user centeredness and better integration with broader systems. Compounding this, research into Ageing in Place and home environments has focused on built environments and largely ignored the impact of technology in the lives of older people staying at home. Recognising a gap in acknowledging the potential impact of technology on Ageing in Place theories, the purpose of this paper is to conceptualise a way of framing smart technology within an Ageing in Place model that acknowledges the interaction of smart technology with the built environment and caregiving and to present a framework for visualising the interactions that take place. A review of Environmental Gerontology model development is undertaken and a new model is presented that recognises the role of technology in Ageing in Place. Based on this model, a template is developed and three case studies of older people's experiences of smart home technology, home modifications and caregiving are mapped out. These are used to demonstrate "proof of concept" of the relationships put forward in the HAST model and the pre-curser for a template to help people map smart technology and its role in supporting caregiving and ageing in place. This paper's position is that technologies such as IoT further support the role of the built environment and caregiving to produce outcomes that enable older people to remain autonomous, independent, safe and well at home. However, a number of risks were also identified through the case studies, the issues of maintenance, cost and ease of use, and willingness to use are considerations and potential barriers to the benefits of smart technology.

show abstract

Section: Broadening the Focus Identifying The Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ageing in place and the internet of things – how smart home technologies, the built environment and caregiving intersect

Carnemolla

2018

Vis. in Eng.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Causal associations between suitable housing environments and positive physical and mental health, and inappropriate housing environments and poor physical and mental health, has transcended a focus on basic housing and sanitary conditions to more complex direct and indirect influencers; including housing policy, housing location, neighborhood characteristics (i.e., physical accessibility; socioeconomic conditions), affordability, tenancy (i.e., who people live with), tenure security, and access to social and employment networks, educational opportunities, transportation systems, services (i.e., shopping; banking; health care facilities) and public resources (i.e., parks; museums; libraries) [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Further, causal associations between housing and health/wellbeing have been linked to multiple population groups; for example, children [8,9], adults [10,11], people from developed and developing nations [12], different geographical areas (i.e., urban, regional, remote locations) [11,13], a range of cultures [14,15], able-bodied populations [8,10], and people with diverse health conditions and impairments [16,17]. Despite this well-established, multifaceted link between housing and health/wellbeing, individuals with an acquired brain injury (ABI) or spinal cord injury (SCI) incur significant housing challenges [18,19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Housing for People with an Acquired Brain or Spinal Injury: Mapping the Australian Funding Landscape

Wright

Colley

Knudsen

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research aimed to synthesize housing supports funded by 20 major insurance-based schemes for Australians with an acquired brain injury (ABI) or spinal cord injury (SCI). Publicly available grey literature (i.e., primary information from respective scheme websites) was systematically reviewed and compared. There were notable differences between the different scheme types (disability vs. workers compensation schemes) and across different States. Collectively, scheme funding was more likely to be focused on housing infrastructure and service delivery, than on tenancy support. Australians who are least likely to benefit from the current funding context are those whose home cannot be reasonably modified, are wanting to build or purchase a new home, do not have suitable, alternative short- or long-term housing options if their current home is not feasible, require support to maintain occupancy of their home or financial assistance to move into a new home, may benefit from case management services, family supports, and assistance animals, and/or cannot afford their rent or home loan repayments. Several interactions, inconsistencies, contradictions, and gaps that warrant further attention were also revealed. This review has highlighted the need for policy makers to provide transparent information about housing entitlements for individuals with ABI or SCI, and their families. A unified, evidence-based framework to guide the funding of housing and housing support services may increase the consistency of interventions available to people with ABI or SCI and, therefore, improve outcomes.

show abstract

“…The greatest reduction in formal care occurred in moving about the house, followed by bathing and showering. These results clearly indicate that care is sensitive to effective home modification interventions and has the potential to reduce the need for care by 42% (Carnemolla and Bridge 2019) and lead to a 40% improvement in a person's quality of life (Carnemolla and Bridge 2016).…”

Section: Key Research Findingsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Home Modification

Bridge¹

2019

Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accessible Housing and Health-Related Quality of Life: Measurements of Wellbeing Outcomes Following Home Modifications

Cited by 24 publications

References 27 publications

Ageing in place and the internet of things – how smart home technologies, the built environment and caregiving intersect

Ageing in place and the internet of things – how smart home technologies, the built environment and caregiving intersect

Housing for People with an Acquired Brain or Spinal Injury: Mapping the Australian Funding Landscape

Home Modification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About