IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v67y2008i1p128-136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The two facets of electronic care surveillance: An exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices

Author

Listed:
  • Essén, Anna

Abstract

Scholars are increasingly questioning the notion that electronic surveillance merely constrains individuals' liberty and privacy. However, illustrations of alternative perspectives are few and there is a need for empirical research exploring the actual experience of surveilled subjects. This study, carried out in Sweden, seeks to offer a nuanced account of how senior citizens experience electronic care surveillance in relation to their privacy. It is based on in-depth interviews with 17 seniors who have participated in a telemonitoring project and who have experience of being continuously activity monitored in their own homes. The findings suggest that senior citizens can perceive electronic care surveillance as freeing and as protecting their privacy, as it enables them to continue living in their own home rather than moving to a nursing home. One individual, however, experienced a privacy violation and the surveillance service was interrupted at her request. This illustrates the importance of built-in possibilities for subjects to exit such services. In general, the study highlights that e-surveillance can be not only constraining but also enabling. Hence, it supports the view of the dual nature of surveillance. The study also illustrates the agency of the surveilled subject, extending the argument that various agents actually participate in the construction of surveillance practices. It analyzes the indirect role and responsibility of the surveilled subject, and thereby questions the traditional roles ascribed to the agents and targets of surveillance.

Suggested Citation

  • Essén, Anna, 2008. "The two facets of electronic care surveillance: An exploration of the views of older people who live with monitoring devices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 128-136, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:67:y:2008:i:1:p:128-136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(08)00128-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Parrott, Roxanne & Burgoon, Judee K. & Burgoon, Michael & LePoire, Beth A., 1989. "Privacy between physicians and patients: More than a matter of confidentiality," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 29(12), pages 1381-1385, January.
    2. Damschroder, Laura J. & Pritts, Joy L. & Neblo, Michael A. & Kalarickal, Rosemarie J. & Creswell, John W. & Hayward, Rodney A., 2007. "Patients, privacy and trust: Patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 223-235, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cameron Parsell, 2016. "Surveillance in supportive housing: Intrusion or autonomy?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(15), pages 3189-3205, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michela Chessa & Patrick Loiseau, 2017. "Enhancing Voluntary Contribution in a Public Goods Economy via a Minimum Individual Contribution Level," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-24, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Feb 2023.
    2. Miller, Edward Alan, 2007. "Solving the disjuncture between research and practice: Telehealth trends in the 21st century," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 133-141, July.
    3. Cherif, Emna & Bezaz, Nora & Mzoughi, Manel, 2021. "Do personal health concerns and trust in healthcare providers mitigate privacy concerns? Effects on patients’ intention to share personal health data on electronic health records," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    4. Aleksandar Radic & Rob Law & Michael Lück & Haesang Kang & Antonio Ariza-Montes & Juan M. Arjona-Fuentes & Heesup Han, 2020. "Apocalypse Now or Overreaction to Coronavirus: The Global Cruise Tourism Industry Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Eini Koskimies & Sanna Koskinen & Helena Leino‐Kilpi & Riitta Suhonen, 2020. "The informational privacy of patients in prehospital emergency care—Integrative literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4440-4453, December.
    6. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.
    7. Benjamin Saunders & Julius Sim & Tom Kingstone & Shula Baker & Jackie Waterfield & Bernadette Bartlam & Heather Burroughs & Clare Jinks, 2018. "Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1893-1907, July.
    8. Krug, Joachim, 1999. "Pattern-forming instabilities in homoepitaxial crystal growth," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 263(1), pages 170-179.
    9. Eunhye Shin & Hanna Lee, 2021. "Effects of Using Perineal Underwear on Discomfort and Shame in Angiography Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-7, March.
    10. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    11. M. Grace Trinidad & Jodyn Platt & Sharon L. R. Kardia, 2020. "The public’s comfort with sharing health data with third-party commercial companies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Stephanie R. Morain & Danielle M. Whicher & Nancy E. Kass & Ruth R. Faden, 2017. "Deliberative Engagement Methods for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 545-552, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:67:y:2008:i:1:p:128-136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.