1472-6947-8-26 1472-6947 Research article <p>Towards pervasive computing in health care – A literature review</p> Orwat Carsten orwat@itas.fzk.de Graefe Andreas graefe@itas.fzk.de Faulwasser Timm timm.faulwasser@ovgu.de

Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis), Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft (Karlsruhe Research Centre, Member of the Helmholtz Association); Address: P.O. Box 3640, D-76021 Karlsruhe, Germany

Institut für Automatisierungstechnik (Institute for Automatic Control), Otto-von-Guericke Universität Magdeburg (Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg); Address: P.O. Box 4120, D-39016 Magdeburg, Germany

 BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1472-6947 2008 8 1 26 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/8/26 18565221 10.1186/1472-6947-8-26 05 11 2007 19 6 2008 19 6 2008 2008 Orwat et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

The evolving concepts of pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence are increasingly influencing health care and medicine. Summarizing published research, this literature review provides an overview of recent developments and implementations of pervasive computing systems in health care. It also highlights some of the experiences reported in deployment processes.

Methods

There is no clear definition of pervasive computing in the current literature. Thus specific inclusion criteria for selecting articles about relevant systems were developed. Searches were conducted in four scientific databases alongside manual journal searches for the period of 2002 to 2006. Articles included present prototypes, case studies and pilot studies, clinical trials and systems that are already in routine use.

Results

The searches identified 69 articles describing 67 different systems. In a quantitative analysis, these systems were categorized into project status, health care settings, user groups, improvement aims, and systems features (i.e., component types, data gathering, data transmission, systems functions). The focus is on the types of systems implemented, their frequency of occurrence and their characteristics. Qualitative analyses were performed of deployment issues, such as organizational and personnel issues, privacy and security issues, and financial issues. This paper provides a comprehensive access to the literature of the emerging field by addressing specific topics of application settings, systems features, and deployment experiences.

Conclusion

Both an overview and an analysis of the literature on a broad and heterogeneous range of systems are provided. Most systems are described in their prototype stages. Deployment issues, such as implications on organization or personnel, privacy concerns, or financial issues are mentioned rarely, though their solution is regarded as decisive in transferring promising systems to a stage of regular operation. There is a need for further research on the deployment of pervasive computing systems, including clinical studies, economic and social analyses, user studies, etc.

Background

Pervasive computing and related concepts

Pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing, and ambient intelligence are concepts evolving in a plethora of applications in health care. In the literature, pervasive computing is loosely associated with the further spreading of miniaturized mobile or embedded information and communication technologies (ICT) with some degree of 'intelligence', network connectivity and advanced user interfaces 12345. Because of its ubiquitous and unobtrusive analytical, diagnostic, supportive, information and documentary functions, pervasive computing is predicted to improve traditional health care 67. Some of its capabilities, such as remote, automated patient monitoring and diagnosis, may make pervasive computing a tool advancing the shift towards home care, and may enhance patient self-care and independent living. Automatic documentation of activities, process control or the right information in specific work situations as supplied by pervasive computing are expected to increase the effectiveness as well as efficiency of health care providers. For example, in hospitals pervasive computing has the potential to support the working conditions of hospital personnel, e.g., highly mobile and cooperative work, use of heterogeneous devices, or frequent alternation between concurrent activities 8. 'Anywhere and anytime' are becoming keywords – a development often associated with 'pervasive healthcare' 910. On the other hand, the social, economic and ethical concerns regarding the use of pervasive computing may detract from its acceptance and societal desirability, which is equally relevant to health care 1112.

Purpose of this review

Pervasive computing entered health care in almost every setting, making it difficult to develop an idea of its typical implementation and maintain an overview of recent developments. We address this difficulty by providing a systematic overview and analysis of systems developments and implementations of pervasive computing in health care and highlighting experiences in deployment. Summarizing published research, this literature review provides a resource for researchers, scholars, or practitioners dealing with pervasive computing. That said, many systems developments and implementations are not published in the literature. Therefore, this article does not fully cover the field of pervasive computing in health care. Rather, it provides an overview of peer-reviewed literature on this topic.

Methods

Scope of systems

As the technology is still evolving, there is neither an appropriate definition of pervasive computing 13 nor an exact distinction from similar terms, such as ubiquitous computing 14 or ambient intelligence 15. This often leads systems developers, imprecisely, to declare their systems 'pervasive' or simply not use any of these terms. Therefore, for this literature review a set of criteria which defined the framework for the selection process had to be developed. The criteria are minimum features of pervasive computing regarded as new and distinctive. This selection seeks to identify articles in which systems with inherent pervasive computing features are covered in line with the criteria outlined below. The selection criteria were defined to include a broad range of different systems. They were also designed so as to distinguish our search and position it in broader concepts, such as telemedicine or e-health. Articles not clearly telling whether the systems described meet the inclusion criteria were not considered.

Inclusion criteria for systems

First, systems were included, when they were ubiquitous in the sense of being not bound to one dedicated location, such as a computer at a workplace. For example, systems of telemedicine via video conferencing at dedicated places were not considered (e.g., stationary desktop computers). Instead, systems were included which featured:

• mobile devices (e.g., laptops, PDAs, tablet PCs, mobile phones),

• wearable items (computer-enhanced textiles, accessories, or medical devices),

• implanted devices, as well as

• stationary devices, such as sensors or other ICT components embedded in 'everyday objects' or infrastructure, such as buildings, furniture, etc.

Secondly, systems were considered which had elements of 'intelligence' in the sense of context awareness 1617 or decision support capabilities. Systems transferring information only by simply forwarding data were excluded, such as PDAs sending manually entered data to a server. Thirdly, data processing or transmission must be performed by systems without any human intervention. For instance, systems requiring manual data conversion, such as printing and manual re-entering of data in the process chain, were excluded.

Inclusion criteria for studies

Prototypes, tests, pilot studies and case studies conducted in health care settings, or systems involving prospective end users, clinical trials as well as systems already in routine use were included. Experiments in non-medical settings as well as mere descriptions of concepts, designs or architectures were not included. Only complete functioning systems, no components or parts, were taken into account.

Search method

This literature review is limited to published work that has undergone scientific peer-review processes. Our search was restricted to articles in journals and chapters of periodicals written in English and published between 2002 and 2006. Keyword searches were conducted in PubMed, ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), IEEE Xplore and INSPEC by using the search string ("pervasive computing" OR "ubiquitous computing" OR "ambient intelligence" OR "pervasive healthcare") AND (healthcare OR "health care" OR medic*). These databases contain, among others things, literature in the fields of medicine, medical informatics, medical technology, computer science and research, as well as electronic engineering. The database searches led to 247 distinct articles. As many authors do not use the terms 'pervasive computing', 'ubiquitous computing', etc., 46 periodicals were searched manually (see Additional file 1). The journals were selected to represent the fields of medical informatics and pervasive computing most relevant to the subject at hand.

<p>Additional file 1</p>

List of journals included in the manual search. The additional "List of journals included in manual search.pdf" PDF file contains journals searched manually in the literature review. The file lists journal names and links to their websites. Where available, further links to PubMed references as well as Open Access versions of journals at PubMed Central (PMC) are provided.

Click here for file

For both the database search and the manual journal search, the titles and abstracts of each article were read by at least two authors, first, to check whether inclusion criteria were met. Dubious articles were not excluded immediately but considered in the second step. Step one resulted in 98 articles from database search and 291 articles from manual journal search. In step two, after duplicates had been eliminated, 326 articles were read in full length, again by at least two authors. In case of any disagreement about inclusion, the respective article was read by a third author who decided about its inclusion or non-inclusion. As illustrated in Figure 1, the final 67 systems described in 69 articles were included in the analysis. In the analysis and discussions below reference is made to the systems, no longer to the articles.

<p>Figure 1</p>

Method used in selecting articles published between 2002 and 2006

Method used in selecting articles published between 2002 and 2006.

Figure 2 provides an overview of the journals with the largest numbers of selected articles.

<p>Figure 2</p>

Periodicals including most of the articles selected

Periodicals including most of the articles selected.

Systems and projects were analyzed by the categories of project status, health care setting, users, improvement aims, component types, data gathering, data transmission, systems functions, and deployment issues as well as combinations thereof. For the analyses, the approach of Cruz-Correia et al. 18 was partly adopted, while the definition of categories was partly influenced by other overviews of the topic 781920.

Results

Table 1 displays system and project names, countries of implementation, number of references as well as the actual references. When an article includes two or more systems, the systems are listed separately. When different articles refer to the same system or project, the references are listed together. Finally, 67 distinct systems were identified for the review. The countries with the largest numbers of systems in place are USA (24 systems), UK (8 systems), France (4 systems), Taiwan (4 systems), Australia (3 systems), Denmark (3 systems), Germany (3 systems), Spain (3 systems). A total of 31 systems were implemented in the EU. Two commercial systems are employed internationally.

<p>Table 1</p>

Systems included in the review

System/Project Name

Countries

Number of Publications

Years of Publication

References

ABC (Activity-Based Computing) Framework, Aarhus

Denmark

1

2005

76

Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Monitoring System, St. Paul

USA

1

2006

68

Activity Tracking and Ambient Displays

USA

1

2003

21

Adaptive Coaching through Sequential Routines

USA

1

2003

21

Advanced Care and Alert Portable Telemedical Monitor (AMON) Project

Switzerland, Israel, France

2

2004, 2005

41 42

Airmed-Cardio System

Spain

1

2005

50

Allocation and Group Aware Pervasive Environment (AGAPE) System

Italy

1

2006

60

Asset-Tracking System, Durham

USA

1

2003

56

Asthma Monitoring System, Oxford

UK

1

2005

49

Automated Surveillance System, La Tronche

France

1

2003

32

Battlefield Medical Information System-Tactical (BMIST) System

USA

1

2006

91

Blood Bag Monitoring System, Shimane

Japan

1

2003

55

Care in the Community Project

UK

1

2004

37

CareMedia Project

USA

1

2004

67

Chronic Care Telemedicine System, Madrid

Spain

1

2006

88

Cyber Crumb System

USA

1

2004

53

Diabetes Telemedicine System, Oxford

UK

1

2005

22

DiaBetNet

USA

1

2004

57

Elite Care Business

USA

1

2002

23

ENABLE Project, Cooker Monitor

UK, Lithuania, Ireland

1

2004

72

ENABLE Project, Night Light

UK, Lithuania, Ireland

1

2004

72

Gérontologie Assistée par la Recherche et le Diagnostic des Incidents et des Errances Nocturnes (Gardien) System

France

1

2005

77

Hand-Held Decision Support System, Sydney

Australia

1

2005

78

Hand-Held Devices in Emergency Department, Western Australia

Australia

1

2004

83

Health Feedback Displays

USA

1

2005

40

Home Asthma Telemonitoring (HAT) System

USA

1

2004

48

Home Automated Telemanagement (HAT) System

USA

1

2006

26

Home Monitoring of Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators, Aachen

Germany

1

2006

58

Home-Monitoring System for Cardiac Patients, Graz

Austria

1

2006

85

Hospital Ward with Virtual Notes, Trondheim

Norway

1

2006

74

Hospital Without Walls Project

Australia

1

2002

69

iHospital System, Horsens

Denmark

1

2006

13

Implantable Haemodynamic Monitoring System, Minneapolis

USA

1

2005

59

Integrated Home Telehealth Care System, Seoul

Korea

1

2005

45

Intelligent Emergency Respose (IERS) System

Canada

1

2005

33

IST@HOME Project

EU

1

2004

30

Karma2 Project

Italy

2

2004, 2005

51 52

LifeShirt System

International

1

2004

46

MASCAL System

USA

1

2005

54

MIThril System

USA

1

2004

57

Mobile Emergency Triage (MET) System

Canada

2

2004, 2005

81 82

MobileWard System

Denmark

1

2006

75

NASA Arrhythmia Monitoring System

USA

1

2004

24

Notfall Organisations- und Arbeitshilfe (NOAH) System

Germany

1

2003

80

Pervasive Sensor and Activity Tracking (Severe Cognitive Impairment)

USA

1

2003

21

Proactive Activity Toolkit (PROACT)

USA

1

2004

38

QuietCare System

USA

1

2006

27

Real Time Location System, Antwerp

Belgium

1

2006

39

Real-Time Wireless Physiological Monitoring System (RTWPMS), Taipei

Taiwan

1

2006

64

Remote Monitoring System, Toulouse

France

2

2002

65 66

Safety Portal, Taipei

Taiwan

2

2005, 2006

43 44

SenseWear System

International

1

2005

31

Array-Based Detectors (Simbad) Project

UK

1

2004

34

TeleCARE Project

Spain

1

2004

35

Triage and Casualty Informatics Technology (TACIT) System

USA

1

2006

63

Triage Support System, Taipei

Taiwan

1

2006

87

Trinetra System

USA

1

2006

86

Tumor Board Project

Germany

1

2006

79

Virtual Eye (VI) System

Saudi Arabia, UAE

1

2006

29

Wearable Systems in Nursing Home Care, Lulea

Sweden

1

2006

73

West Surrey Telemedicine Monitoring Project

UK

1

2003

62

Wireless Alerts Pagers, Los Angeles

USA

2

2003, 2005

70 71

Wireless Electronic Prescription (EPS) System, London

UK

1

2006

84

Wireless Intelligent Sensors (WISE), Huntsville

USA

1

2003

28

Wireless Physiological Monitoring, Taipei

Taiwan

1

2004

61

Wireless Sensors in Health and Care (WSHC) Project

Norway

1

2006

47

Worker Interactive Networking (WIN) Project

USA

1

2006

36

Status of system

Three stages of project status were distinguished: prototype or pilot testing, clinical or medical trials, and regular operation. As shown in Table 2, most systems are presented in their prototype or pilot stages (84%). Authors reported that six systems had passed clinical trials, five systems were found to be in regular operation. This information represents the status as described in the articles, ignoring any subsequent changes.

<p>Table 2</p>

Status of systems

System or project status

n (%)

References

Prototype/pilot study

56 (84%)

13 21 24 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 80 83 84 85 86 87

Clinical trials

6 (9%)

22 57 59 78 81 82 88

In regular operation

5 (7%)

23 31 46 70 71 91

Note: Systems are assigned to one status category only. The percentages refer to all 67 systems examined.

Health care settings

The targeted health care settings are differentiated into ambulatory, home and mobile, clinical, care and rehabilitation. Most systems (57%) are intended for use in home and mobile settings, followed by clinics (36%) (Table 3). Four systems are applied in the ambulatory setting. Seven systems have uses in emergency medical services. Five systems are dedicated to the use in care settings, and no system is explicitly foreseen for rehabilitation.

<p>Table 3</p>

Health care settings

Health care settings

n (%)

References

Ambulatory

4 (6%)

31 46 84 91

Home/mobile

38 (57%)

21 22 23 24 26 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 42 45 48 49 50 51 52 53 57 58 59 62 65 66 68 69 72 85 86 88

Emergency

7 (10%)

24 54 60 63 80 87 91

Clinical

24 (36%)

13 29 32 41 42 43 44 46 47 53 54 55 56 61 64 70 71 74 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 83 87 88

Care

5 (7%)

39 64 67 69 73

Rehabilitation

0 (0%)

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Users

Systems users are divided into health care professionals, (i.e. medical personnel, including nurses and professional caregivers, paramedics, physicians) and lay persons (i.e. patients and private caregivers, such as family members). Even though, in most cases, several stakeholders profit from an application (e.g., patients benefiting from a better diagnosis by physicians using a system), only the active users or operators were considered as 'users'. As Table 4 shows, nurses and caregivers (51%) and physicians (54%) are nearly equal as designated users. Paramedics are the users of five systems. Not surprisingly, patients are the largest group of users (72%). In many cases, they are supported by lay caregivers or family members involved in nine systems. Four systems involve other user types, i.e. exercise partners in an elderly-care institution 21, pharmacists 22, institution management 23, or a call center 24.

<p>Table 4</p>

Users

Users

n (%)

References

Medical professionals

Nurses/caregivers

34 (51%)

13 22 23 27 29 30 31 34 37 39 41 42 43 44 45 47 51 52 54 55 56 59 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 73 74 75 76 77 83 87 88

Paramedics

5 (7%)

24 54 63 80 91

Physicians

36 (54%)

13 22 23 29 31 32 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 58 59 60 61 63 64 69 70 71 74 76 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 88 91

Lay persons

Patients

48 (72%)

21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 57 58 59 60 61 62 64 67 68 69 72 84 85 86 88

Private caregivers/family

9 (13%)

21 23 30 34 35 36 40 65 66 72

Others

4 (6%)

21 41 68 76

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Improvement aims

The development and deployment of IT systems in health care is usually driven by intentions to improve medical care or workflow. Therefore, this category is divided into organizational improvements (e.g., improved documentation or process automation) and medical improvements. Medical improvements are further divided as follows: Therapy and rehabilitation deals with situations where the goal is the recovery of the patient, while prevention and care encompasses situations where no disease is treated, but a disease or its further progress are to prevented or compensated for. The latter includes care for elderly or support of people with special needs. As Table 5 shows, 39% of all systems seek to improve the organization of health care providers. 12% of all systems were designed to improve therapy and rehabilitation, while 63% seek to enhance prevention and care.

<p>Table 5</p>

Improvement aims

Improvement aims

n (%)

References

Organizational improvements

26 (39%)

13 21 23 29 39 43 44 47 54 55 56 63 70 71 73 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 87 91

Medical improvements

Therapy and rehabilitation

8 (12%)

22 31 46 50 51 52 57 85

Prevention and care

42 (63%)

21 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 45 46 48 49 53 58 59 60 61 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 72 77 86 87 88

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

In addition, medical improvements are categorized according to the body subsystem and disease categorization of the Medical Subject Headings of the U.S. National Library of Medicine 25. Categories encompass the cardiovascular system, respiratory tract, endocrine system, sensory organs, nervous system, and others. These categories were selected according to the diseases mentioned in the studies included. A large part of the systems refer to the nervous system (21%), dementia being mentioned most often (Table 6). In addition, 18% of the systems refer to the cardiovascular system, in particular to heart arrhythmia or chronic heart diseases. Eight systems target the respiratory tract, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as the most important case. Two systems are dedicated to diabetes treatment (endocrine system). The seven systems in the 'Others' category cover, for instance, inflammatory bowel disease 26, cancer 27, or stress 28. Also, 24% of systems are found to have no specific targeted disease or part of the body subsystem. In many cases, systems monitor multiple physiological parameters for diverse health care applications. Other systems provide general information about the status of patients or inhabitants 23293031 or monitor presence, movements or behavioral patterns of residents of care institutions 23323334353637383940. The 'Data gathering' Section below provides more details on the different types.

<p>Table 6</p>

Medical improvements by body subsystems

Body Subsystems

n (%)

References

Cardiovascular System

12 (18%)

24 28 41 42 45 46 50 58 59 60 61 64 85

Respiratory Tract

8 (12%)

41 42 45 46 48 49 62 88 91

Endocrine System

2 (3%)

22 57

Sensory Organs

1 (1%)

86

Nervous system

14 (21%)

21 46 51 52 53 57 65 66 67 72 77 86 91

Others

7 (10%)

26 27 28 46 57 68 91

No specific disease

16 (24%)

23 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 43 44 69 87

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Systems features

Four variables which characterize specific systems features, i.e. component types, types of data gathering, data transmission, and systems functions, were selected.

Component types

Systems are classified into those with mobile and stationary components. Systems with mobile components were differentiated as conventional mobile devices, wearables, and implanted devices. Stationary devices are computer-enhanced physical environments, such as buildings or furniture. As depicted in Table 7, 51% of systems are found to utilize conventional mobile devices. Stationary devices are used equally often (51%), in many cases in a comprehensive, integrated application of systems, such as information exchange systems in hospitals or for monitoring in care facilities. A considerable fraction use wearables (42%) including wrist-worn units 314142434445, an electronic vest 46, an electronic glove 38 as well as mobile medical devices, such as a blood glucose meter 22, blood pressure meter 47, spirometer 48, asthma peak flow meter 49, electrocardiogram (ECG) or heart rate monitors 242850, or multi-purpose meters 305152. Also electronic person tags or badges 2123395354, electronic object tags 21385556 or a customizable modular system 57 belong to this component type. Only two systems have implanted devices, i.e. a cardiac pacemaker with a monitoring function 58 and an implantable haemodynamic monitoring system 59.

<p>Table 7</p>

Component types

Component types

n (%)

References

Conventional mobile device

34 (51%)

13 22 26 28 29 30 36 40 43 44 48 49 50 54 57 60 61 63 64 69 70 71 73 74 75 76 78 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 91

Wearables

28 (42%)

21 22 23 24 28 30 31 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 60 62 73

Implanted devices

2 (3%)

58 59

Stationary devices

34 (51%)

13 21 23 27 28 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 45 53 59 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 72 74 75 76 77 79 84

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Data gathering

The systems are classified by five types of data gathering or data input: monitoring of persons or objects; localization of persons or objects as well as manual input or request by the user. As presented in Table 8, most systems monitor persons (63%), typically by gathering physiological or behavioral data. For physiological data or vital signs, respectively, systems range from measuring a single physiological parameter, i.e. ECG 245060, lung function (asthma) 4849, haemodynamic trends 59, blood glucose (diabetes) 2257, heart rhythm 58, blood pressure 47, or weight 26, to simultaneously gathering multiple physiological data 28293031424546515261626364.

<p>Table 8</p>

Types of data gathering

Type of data gathering

n (%)

References

Monitoring of persons

42 (63%)

21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 39 40 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 88 91

Monitoring of objects

11 (16%)

21 27 40 43 44 55 68 70 71 72 79 86

Localization of persons

21 (31%)

13 23 24 27 32 35 37 39 40 43 44 53 54 60 63 67 68 73 74 75 76 77

Localization of objects

3 (4%)

38 54 56

Manual input or request

19 (28%)

40 48 50 59 62 63 73 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Behavioral data gathering includes monitoring of presence, movements or activities 2135376566, such as monitoring of 'Activities of Daily Living' (ADL) 386768, sleeping or overnight activities 2741, medication adherence 27, presence or movements in rooms or facilities 21363953, social or communicative behavior 40, or detection of falls 3334. Also combinations of monitoring multiple physiological parameters and movement data can be found 2369. In one case, the purpose of person identification is mentioned explicitly 67. On the other hand, monitoring of objects is less frequent (16%). It includes, for instance, RFID-based inventory control 43, monitoring of blood bag temperature 55, checking for lab results 7071 or monitoring conditions or activities of persons, such as indicating sleeping conditions by bed sensors 6872.

The second most frequent type of data input is localization of persons (31%). This encompasses the localization of medical personnel within hospitals or care facilities, in most cases, for context-aware or location-dependent information 1373747576. Most systems focus on the localization of patients or residents within facilities 23273235373940434463676877, or in larger geographical areas by GPS 24. Localization is also used to support persons with special needs, for instance, for directing blind persons 53, or to assist ad hoc groups of helpers in emergency situations 60. Only one system furnishes multiple localizations of personnel, patients, and equipment 54 while three systems localize objects, i.e. medical equipment 5456 or RFID-tagged objects of daily life allowing conclusions to be drawn about activities of the persons monitored 38.

A large percentage of systems require manual input or request of data (28%), mainly in mobile devices, such as PDAs or tablet PCs. The data is entered by health care or care personnel 63747578798081828384 or patients 485085, residents of care facilities 40 or people with special needs 86. In many cases, manual input or request is an additional channel besides automatic monitoring or localization. For instance, manual involvement consists of transmitting parts of the physiological parameters or supportive results of questionnaires 50, supportive telephone calls by a nurse parallel to automatic transmission of monitoring data 62, or data access through a web interface 59. In other cases, speech recognition is supported by manual data input 7387.

Data transmission

There are systems transmitting data to other systems or players and those which do not. With data transmission, the data leave the area of control by a specific user, which may have implications on privacy and security (see below). As is shown in Table 9, most systems transmit data (88%), for example, for purposes of data analysis, forwarding, or storage. In many cases, data are transmitted to a central server. All systems developed for data exchange among multiple users depend – by nature – on data transmission. About 19% of all systems do not rely completely on data transmission and are able to perform functions independently and in a decentralized fashion. About half of those systems consist of wearables monitoring patient health or activity 3138424557, assisting the user by providing supportive information about the health status or by suggesting certain activities. Some systems can perform parts of their functions both with and without data transmission 31404145485772.

<p>Table 9</p>

Data transmission

Data transmission

n (%)

References

With data transmission

59 (88%)

13 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 88 91

Without data transmission

13 (19%)

21 31 32 33 38 40 41 42 45 48 57 72 87

Not described well enough

2 (3%)

37 78

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Systems functions

The functions provided by the systems are subdivided into six categories: analytical and diagnostic support; alerting; medical treatment; support activities (e.g., reminding or guidance); process automation; and documentation and information. As is evident from Table 10, about 60% of all systems provide analytical and diagnostic functions, often in combination with automatic alerting, which is performed by 46% of all systems. Most of these systems perform physiological monitoring, in particular of the cardiovascular system 2829415061. There are other disease-specific systems, for example, for diabetes 2248 or asthma 4957. A large percentage of systems do not perform physiological monitoring, but obtain analytical and diagnostic support from tracking the activities or behavior of patients 276567686977. The 'support activities' category (34%) includes heterogeneous functions, such as providing reminders for medication 85, scheduling for social contacts 21, orientation in buildings 53, or a product bar code translation for blind people 86.

<p>Table 10</p>

Systems functions

Functions

n (%)

References

Analytical and diagnostic support

40 (60%)

22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 35 37 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 57 58 59 60 61 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 77 79 80 81 82 85 87 88 91

Alerting

31 (46%)

13 21 22 23 24 27 29 30 33 34 35 36 39 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 58 60 61 62 64 68 69 70 71 72 77 83 85 88

Support activities

23 (34%)

13 21 22 23 26 30 35 38 40 45 48 53 57 60 70 71 72 73 74 76 81 82 85 86

Information and documentation

21 (31%)

13 23 27 43 44 46 48 54 55 61 63 64 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 83 88 91

Process automation

11 (16%)

13 39 43 44 55 56 73 76 79 81 82 84 91

Medical treatment

0

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Documentation and information is a function in 31% of all systems. It includes systems providing context-aware information about patient data and laboratory reports during surgical interventions 1379 or in morning rounds 76. Many systems supporting the emergency triage process store data for documentation purposes 63808182. Several systems measuring physiological parameters also store data for documentation 46486188. One system provides trend information about the behavior of elderly people receiving care 27.

About 16% of all systems target process automation, the most important task of which is to tracking persons 13397376, or inventories 56. Identification of persons via RFID 4344, phone call interception 73 or electronic prescription transmission 84 are other examples in this category. No system is dedicated to medical treatment, which could be conceivable as computer-supported and remote medication.

Analysis of health care settings

Combinations of the categories health care settings, improvement aims, functions, and component types also provide cross-category analyses in order to gain some insight into the use of systems in different health care settings. For these cross-category analyses, it must be pointed out that the allocations of systems refer to their full functionalities. Thus, multiple entries under different combinations are possible.

Health care settings and improvement aims

Not surprisingly, organizational improvements, achieved mostly by automation of manual activities, are the primary goal in the clinical setting (24%), followed by improved prevention and care (15%) (Table 11). In the home and mobile settings, however, the systems primarily seek to provide medical improvements mainly in prevention and care (48%) followed by therapy and rehabilitation (10%). Here, only four systems are to achieve organizational improvements.

<p>Table 11</p>

Health care settings and improvement aims

Health care settings

Ambulatory

Home/mobile

Clinical

Care

Emergency

Organizational improvements

n (%)

2 (3%)

4 (6%)

16 (24%)

2 (3%)

5 (7%)

References

84 91

21 23

13 29 43 44 47 54 55 56 70 71 74 75 76 78 79 81 82 83 87

39 73

54 63 80 87 91

Medical improvements

Therapy and rehabilitation

n (%)

2 (3%)

7 (10%)

1 (1%)

0

0

References

31 46

22 31 50 51 52 57 85

46

Prevention and care

n (%)

2 (3%)

32 (48%)

10 (15%)

4(6%)

3 (4%)

References

31 46

21 23 24 26 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 42 45 48 49 53 58 59 62 65 66 68 69 72 86 88

29 32 41 42 46 53 61 64 77 87 88

39 64 67 69

24 60 87

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Health care settings and systems functions

Table 12 sheds some light on the ways systems functions are used in the respective health care settings. As expected, analytical and diagnostic support (18%), alerting (14%), and support activities (11%) are most popular in home or mobile settings whereas information and documentation (four systems) or process automation and control (no system) play only a negligible role. For clinical applications, the systems functions are distributed more evenly, information and documentation (10%) being most popular.

<p>Table 12</p>

Health care settings and functions

Functions

Health care settings

Ambulatory

Home/mobile

Clinical

Care

Emergency

Analytical and diagnostic support

n (%)

3 (2%)

26 (18%)

12 (8%)

3 (2%)

5 (3%)

References

31 46 91

22 23 24 26 27 28 30 31 35 37 41 42 45 48 49 50 51 52 57 58 59 62 65 66 68 69 85 88

29 32 41 42 46 47 61 64 77 79 81 82 87 88

64 67 69

24 60 80 87 91

Alerting

n (%)

0

20 (14%)

11 (7%)

3 (2%)

2 (1%)

References

21 22 23 24 27 30 33 34 35 36 41 42 45 48 58 62 68 69 72 85 88

13 29 41 42 43 44 47 61 64 70 71 77 83 88

39 64 69

24 60

Support activities

n (%)

0

16 (11%)

6 (4%)

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

References

21 22 23 26 30 35 38 40 45 48 53 57 72 85 86

13 53 70 71 74 76 81 82

73

60

Information and documentation

n (%)

2 (1%)

4 (3%)

15 (10%)

1 (1%)

4 (3%)

References

46 91

23 27 48 88

13 43 44 46 54 55 61 64 74 75 76 78 79 81 82 83 88

64

54 63 80 91

Process automation and control

n (%)

2 (1%)

0

7 (5%)

2 (1%)

1 (1%)

References

84 91

13 43 44 55 56 76 79 81 82

39 73

91

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Health care settings and component types

In Table 13, it can be seen that components implemented most frequently in home or mobile setting are stationary devices (33%) and wearables (28%), followed by conventional mobile devices (21%). In the clinical setting, conventional mobile devices are most prevalent (22%), followed by stationary devices (15%), while eight systems make use of wearables. There is no system implementing stationary devices in emergency settings, as most of the systems take advantage of conventional mobile devices.

<p>Table 13</p>

Health care settings and component types

Health care settings

Component types

Ambulatory

Home/mobile

Clinical

Care

Emergency

Conventional mobile devices

n (%)

2 (3%)

14 (21%)

15 (22%)

3 (4%)

6 (9%)

References

84 91

22 26 28 30 36 40 48 49 50 57 69 85 86 88

13 29 43 44 54 61 64 70 71 74 75 76 78 81 82 83 87 88

64 69 73

54 60 63 80 87 91

Wearables

n (%)

2 (3%)

19 (28%)

8 (12%)

2 (3%)

3 (4%)

References

31 46

21 22 23 24 28 30 31 38 41 42 45 48 49 50 51 52 53 57 62

41 42 43 44 46 47 53 54 55 56

39 73

24 54 60

Implanted devices

n (%)

0

2 (3%)

0

0

0

References

58 59

Stationary devices

n (%)

1 (1%)

22 (33%)

10 (15%)

4 (6%)

0

References

84

21 23 27 28 30 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 45 53 59 65 66 68 69 72

13 32 53 61 64 74 75 76 77 79

39 64 67 69

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Analysis of systems features

Systems functions and types of data gathering

Table 14 provides information about the types of data gathering approaches enabling the respective functions of the systems. Monitoring of persons is by far the most important type of data gathering for analytical and diagnostic support (48%), alerting (36%) as well as support activities (19%), followed by localization of persons. Monitoring and localization of objects generally occur less frequently and are applied in typical activities for organizational improvements, such as information and documentation as well as process automation and control. For all functions, very many systems require manual data input, which could indicate that complete automation may not yet be fully possible or desirable.

<p>Table 14</p>

Systems functions and data gathering

Systems functions

Data gathering

Analytical and diagnostic support

Alerting

Support activities

Information and documentation

Process automation and control

Monitoring of persons

n (%)

32 (48%)

24 (36%)

13 (19%)

9 (13%)

2 (3%)

References

22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 35 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 57 58 59 60 61 62 64 65 66 67 68 69 88 91

21 22 23 24 27 29 30 33 34 35 36 39 41 42 45 47 48 58 60 61 62 64 68 69 88

21 22 23 26 30 35 40 45 48 53 57 60

23 27 46 48 61 63 64 88 91

39 91

Monitoring of objects

n (%)

3 (4%)

5 (7%)

5 (7%)

4 (6%)

3 (4%)

References

27 68 79

27 43 44 68 70 71 72

21 40 70 71 72 86

27 43 44 55 79

43 44 55 79

Localization of persons

n (%)

10 (15%)

10 (15%)

9 (13%)

9 (13%)

5 (7%)

References

23 24 27 32 35 37 60 67 68 77

13 23 24 27 35 39 43 44 60 68 77

13 23 35 40 53 60 73 74 76

13 23 27 43 44 54 63 74 75 76

13 39 43 76 44 73

Localization of objects

n (%)

0

0

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

References

38

54

56

Manual input or request

n (%)

9 (13%)

4 (6%)

8 (12%)

10 (15%)

5 (7%)

References

48 50 59 62 79 80 81 82 85 87

48 62 83 85

40 48 73 74 76 81 82 85 86

48 63 74 75 76 78 79 80 81 82 83

73 76 79 81 82 84

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Systems functions and component types

Table 15 illustrates that there is no one particular type of component dominating implementation of analytical and diagnostic support as well as alerting and support activities, although there is a slight prevalence of conventional mobile devices for analytical and diagnostic support as well as of stationary devices for alerting. Differences are found for functions aimed at achieving organizational improvements. In this case, conventional mobile devices are most popular for information and documentation as well as for process automation and control.

<p>Table 15</p>

Systems functions and component types

Systems functions

Component types

Analytical and diagnostic support

Alerting

Support activities

Information and documentation

Process automation and control

Conventional mobile devices

n (%)

19 (28%)

15 (22%)

15 (22%)

16 (24%)

7 (10%)

References

22 26 28 29 30 48 49 50 57 60 61 64 69 80 81 82 85 87 88 91

13 22 29 30 36 43 44 48 60 61 64 69 70 71 83 85 88

13 22 26 30 40 48 57 60 70 71 73 74 76 81 82 85 86

13 43 44 48 54 61 63 64 74 75 76 78 80 81 82 83 88 91

13 43 44 73 76 81 82 84 91

Wearables

n (%)

18 (27%)

13 (19%)

11 (16%)

6 (9%)

5 (7%)

References

22 23 24 28 30 31 41 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 57 60 62

21 22 23 24 30 39 41 42 43 44 45 47 48 60 62

21 22 23 30 38 45 48 53 57 60 73

23 43 44 46 48 54 55

39 43 44 55 56 73

Stationary systems

n (%)

17 (25%)

17 (25%)

13 (19%)

9 (13%)

5 (7%)

References

23 27 28 30 32 35 37 45 59 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 77 79

13 21 23 27 30 33 34 35 36 39 45 61 64 68 69 72 77

13 21 23 30 35 38 40 45 53 72 74 76

13 23 27 61 64 74 75 76 79

13 39 76 79 84

Note: Implanted devices are not included in the table. Multiple entries in different categories are possible. The percentages refer to all 67 systems reviewed.

Systems flexibility and complexity

Next, the flexibility of the systems will be analyzed in the light of whether a particular system performs more than one system function. As is shown in Table 16, 30 systems (45%) are identified which perform one function only: analytical and diagnostic support (12 systems), support activities (7 systems), alerting (5 systems), information and documentation (4 systems), and process automation and control (2 systems). As functions increase, systems naturally become more complex while the number of systems actually capable of performing multiple functions decreases. This analysis revealed 19 systems performing two functions, 14 systems with three functions, and four systems able to perform four functions.

<p>Table 16</p>

Systems flexibility

n (%)

References

One-function systems

30 (45%)

Analytical and diagnostic support

12 (18%)

28 31 32 37 49 50 51 52 57 59 65 66 67 87

Alerting

5 (7%)

21 33 34 36 72

Support activities

7 (10%)

21 38 40 53 72 86

Information and documentation

4 (6%)

54 63 75 78

Process automation and control

2 (3%)

56 84

Two-function systems

19 (28%)

24 26 29 39 41 42 46 47 55 57 58 62 68 69 70 71 73 74 77 80 83

Three-function systems

14 (21%)

22 27 30 35 43 44 45 60 61 64 76 79 85 88 91

Four-function systems

4 (6%)

13 23 48 81 82

Note: No multiple entries. The allocation of systems is unique.

In the context of this study, systems complexity is expressed by the number of different types of components in a system. A distinction is made between systems using a single device or multiple devices made up of one (57%) or more than one component type (Table 17). Among these systems using only one type of component, stationary devices are most frequent (21%), mainly as comprehensive ICT infrastructure embedded in facilities. They are closely followed by conventional mobile devices (19%) and wearables (15%). In the category of systems combining two component types (40%), the combination of conventional mobile devices with stationary devices and wearables was found most frequently (10 and 9 systems, respectively), followed by the combination of wearables and stationary devices (7 systems). Only two systems were found to implement as many as three different types of components.

<p>Table 17</p>

Systems complexity

n (%)

References

Single-component system

38 (57%)

Conventional mobile devices

13 (19%)

26 29 63 70 71 78 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 91

Wearables

10 (15%)

24 31 41 42 46 47 51 52 55 56 57 62

Implanted devices

1 (1%)

58

Stationary devices

14 (21%)

21 27 32 33 34 35 37 65 66 67 68 72 77 79

Two-component system

27 (40%)

Conventional mobile devices and wearables

9 (13%)

22 43 44 48 49 50 54 57 60 73

Conventional mobile and stationary devices

10 (15%)

13 36 40 61 64 69 74 75 76 84

Wearables and stationary devices

7 (10%)

21 23 38 39 45 53

Implanted and stationary devices

1 (1%)

59

Three-component system

Conventional mobile and stationary devices and wearables

2 (3%)

28 30

Note: No multiple entries. The allocation of systems is unique.

Deployment issues

Under this heading, the focus is on organizational or personnel issues, privacy and security issues, and financial issues. Although these issues are crucial for the success of pervasive computing in health care, they are rarely addressed in the literature (Table 18). Hence, no quantitative analysis of these topics was possible. The qualitative analysis shown below revealed some interesting findings in articles about issues of deployment.

<p>Table 18</p>

Deployment issues

Deployment issues

References

Organizational or personnel issues

13 47 56 69 70 71 74

Financial issues

13 30 34 36 39 53 55 56 86 88

Privacy, security, and control issues

13 24 34 41 42 50 54 56 67 83 84 88

No deployment issues

23 26 28 29 32 33 35 37 38 41 42 43 44 57 61 64 65 66 68 80 87

Note: Multiple entries in different categories are possible.

Issues of organization and personnel

Issues of organization or personnel are described for only six systems (Table 18). Positive experiences are reported from an interpersonal communication service utilizing digital notes within hospital wards 74. The author investigates the integration of the system into regular clinical activities. One of the findings is that the system is better adapted to a high degree of mobility and the highly event-driven working patterns of clinicians than conventional communication technology, such as telephone or fax. Among other things, digital notes have the advantage of not interrupting work routines and providing information in a use context.

The need for organizational issues to be separated into home applications and applications in clinics is stressed by Dadd et al. in a study of a monitoring system 69. While, in a home setting, monitoring is a long-term procedure relatively unattended, monitoring in clinics takes place in an environment where many health professionals, technical assistance and substitute equipment are available. The organizational difference leads to varying technical design requirements.

Other authors write about organizational problems to be solved for successful deployment and regular operation. For the implementation of a wireless biomedical sensor for blood pressure measurement during surgery, Øyri et al. 47 concluded that nursing education should include a stronger focus on nursing informatics. Since nurses played a role in protecting patients, better education could help them overcome potentially conservative attitudes toward change.

Organizational problems with alert pagers in a surgical intensive care unit are examined by Reddy et al. 70. The pager automatically alerts about critical lab results, potential medication problems, and critical patient trend information. One problem is that every message is sent not only to residents and fellows, but simultaneously to physicians who normally would be informed only about important clinical events. The removal of hierarchical boundaries by providing information to everyone, thus, also has unintended negative consequences. Moreover, the unidirectional nature of pagers prevents physicians from responding to a problem in the same way. Physicians also complain of information overload, as every message looks equally important. Another organizational problem is that nurses, who are responsible for supplying physicians with adequate information, do not know whether physicians are already aware of information sent automatically. Thus, nurses might additionally inform physicians about events. Several technical measures are proposed by the authors to better match organizational needs.

Hansen et al. 13 describe organizational issues which emerged in the deployment of the iHospital system, i.e. a hospital scheduling and awareness system. The system utilizes location tracking, video streaming for context information, large interactive displays, and mobile phones. In order to teach users, some of them are familiarized with the system, encouraged in using it, and asked to pass on information and experience to others. The project team also reported that systems causing extra workload and mainly benefiting others are likely to be not used. One example is a tracking chip requiring daily pickup and registration. They also point to the problem of the missing definition of who is responsible for occasionally time consuming and complex systems support after deployment. A similar case is presented by Østbye et al. 56 as result of focus groups involving nursing staff. Nurses raised concerns about the additional workload due to the implementation of new systems, especially when a system is not easy to use or no additional staff is hired for systems maintenance.

Privacy and security issues

Authors report about privacy, security and control issues for 11 systems (Table 18), in some cases only by mentioning that appropriate technical measures ensure systems compliance with data protection laws. Such technical measures include the removal of user identity from data 41 and encryption and authentication steps prior to data transmission as part of the GSM/GPRS protocol 4142, with a secure WAP session 50, or with session key encryption and digital signing using a public key certificate 84. Another study of a telemedicine system for COPD implements a broad set of security measures ranging from password log-ins, PKI certificates, tokens, SSL encryptions, VPN to restricting use only to the intranet 88. In another case, it is noted that the encryption level of the tags used to track patients, equipment and staff is too weak for regular operation 54. To control access to stored information, one system includes a set of layers with different access privileges for different user groups 50. In a trial of a hand-held computing device in an emergency department, data security was to be achieved by a policy requiring that no patient data be stored on the hand-held device and be deleted immediately after transmission to a server. In addition, the system sends an alert to security personnel when the hand-held device crosses certain facility boundaries 83.

As reported by Hansen et al. 13 for the implementation of the iHospital system, the project team found less privacy concerns among participants than expected, although privacy-sensitive data from video multicast and location tracking are processed. The authors had concluded from interviews and observation that the users would trust the system because of the chosen design, in particular, the low-resolution video streams and only partial location tracking, which left 'tracking free' areas, such as the coffee room, cafeteria, and bathrooms. The issue of surveillance of medical staff is also mentioned by Østbye et al. 56 in a case study of an equipment tracking system. In that case, nursing staff voiced concerns about surveillance of their work patterns once the system would be used more widely.

Hauptmann et al. 67 present a pervasive computing system for elderly care which is able to track people over long periods of time, identify individuals, and characterize human activities, such as eating or personal hygiene. In the opinion of Hauptman et al., activity observation and detection is feasible as long as the benefits of monitoring for care purposes are not outweighed by privacy concerns.

Sixsmith et al. 34 provide some findings by focus groups involving users of infrared monitoring systems for detecting falls in an elderly-care setting, in which concerns about intrusiveness are raised. The authors report that lack of understanding the technology is partly responsible for privacy concerns, as the system would not be able to reconstruct an image for viewing. They conclude that adequate information about technology is important during deployment. "Whatever the practical benefits might be, users might not accept the technology if they believe it impinges on their privacy and lifestyle" 34.

In one case study 24, the authors clearly state that the treatment of location data – in this case, a real-time remote heart arrhythmia monitoring system – is an unsolved privacy issue. Recommendations for the appropriate collection, use, and retention of these data are still missing (e.g., the frequency of location data acquisition and transmission, or coordinate accuracy). The authors describe the potential of misuse stemming, in particular, from combinations of databases containing heart health indicators with continuous, time-stamped location data. The authors conclude that telemedicine community and medical community should participate in defining privacy-related rules and guidelines. They also point to another unsolved dilemma: encryption of data for transmission could "... sacrifice precious minutes during heart attack" 24.

Financial issues

Authors mention financial issues for only ten systems (Table 18). No author provides a profound analysis of costs and benefits in economic terms. The most detailed analysis is by Østbye et al. 56 for an equipment tracking system for beds, sequential compression devices, and infusion pumps. They report about the impact on equipment use and, thus, equipment charge capture, but show no positive results for all objects tracked.

Some case studies only provide rough estimations or brief notes, such as reference to the participation of business 36 or to an expected large market for the system 34. For a telemedicine system for COPD, de Toledo et al. 88 present a rough estimate to the effect that significantly shorter hospitalization would lead to fast amortization of the system. Some case studies only mention the costs of system components 3953 indicating that scaling up to regular widespread operation would change the cost structure (e.g., due to other license fees with more users) 39. Authors also assume that changes in reimbursement systems, such as the introduction of the Diagnosis Related Groups system, would have a considerable impact on finance 30.

The case studies also contain information about possible cost reductions. Hanada et al. 55 estimate that only substantial price reductions of blood bag tags would make the system profitable. The potential saving of financial losses in a year due to inappropriate temperature management then would offset the cost of the entire blood bag monitoring system. Cost reductions are expected to arise in particular from the use of commercial off-the-shelf technologies. As described by Narasimhan 86, the Trinetra system, which supports blind shoppers in reading product bar codes in stores, is a result of costs considerations. It utilizes off-the-shelf technology, i.e. a mobile phone, a bar code scanning pen, and a Bluetooth headset. As no investment is required from store owners, the chance that the system will be used regularly is considerably better. Hansen et al. 13 report about the high costs of a commercial location tracking system, which would make the solution financially unattractive for the entire hospital. Therefore, they establish their location tracking technology on the basis of mobile phones owned by physicians or patients.

Discussion

Although forgoing mere descriptions of systems architectures or concepts and focusing instead on prototypes, experiments, pilot studies, clinical trials – involving intended end users – as well as systems already in regular operation, the articles cover less deployment issues than expected. The partly qualitative analysis thus can only indicate potential deployment problems requiring further consideration. We assume that many authors do not wish to report on critical or negative issues. However, as most systems identified were in the prototype stage, such experiences would be particularly valuable in order to leverage pervasive computing and transfer more systems into routine operation.

Findings in the case studies revealed, for instance, that privacy protection is not only an issue in the relation between health care provider and patient – which currently is the main focus of academic and public debates -, but is also an internal concern of health care staff. When coupled with organizational and personnel concerns, pervasive computing innovations could well be stifled by staff worries about surveillance. Also, the regulatory framework for reimbursement and financing can be decisive for pervasive computing systems to be accepted in routine use. There are also indications that the use of off-the-shelf technologies is promising because of possible costs reductions. Although 34% of the systems reviewed already use conventional mobile devices, we expect their number to increase further, as these devices are becoming more and more powerful.

The case studies also reveal that developers often think about technical measures to protect privacy. We consider institutional measures and policies as equally crucial not only for individual acceptance but for societal acceptability 89. This latter distinction is crucial, since the individual acceptance of privacy-related applications, for example, by a suffering patient or a dependent health care employee is expected to be much greater than the level of acceptability demanded by society and its representatives in balanced decisions. This is relevant, for instance, to determine the point where the benefits of monitoring are outweighed by threats to privacy protection. This point should be defined in a general manner by guidelines and policies and cannot be determined in case studies involving patients or employees. General binding decisions about the types of data gathered by pervasive computing applications as well as rules about where the data are used, by whom and in what form, should be developed, communicated, adopted, and enforced. Pervasive computing may imply that more players are involved in care relations and the management of personal data, such as systems or service providers, relatives, or multiple medical or care providers in complex health care situations, such as integrated health care.

In the case studies examined, privacy-enhancing technical measures mostly have an 'add-on' character, such as encryption added to data transmission. Instead, a number of systems do not require data transmission to other systems or players. Data transmission involves other parties, thus inevitably raising privacy concerns. Approaches to 'self-supported' 17 pervasive computing requiring neither data transmission nor the use of central and external hardware and software infrastructures are an interesting option in personal health care and personal support of health care staff. For instance, some of the systems mentioned above provide supportive information about health status or make certain suggestions without including data transmission 3138424557. This can contribute to the development of 'persuasive computing' in health care 90. Further technological developments, particularly improvements in data storage and processing capabilities of mobile devices and wearables, can accomplish pervasive computing without data transmission. These will enable a shift of analytical, alerting, guiding and other functions from central servers to mobile and wearable devices. Less user worry about surveillance could be a result.

Limitations

There is a gap between the systems we analyzed in our literature review and the full field of pervasive computing in health care. First, many systems developments and implementations might never have undergone scientific peer-review and, therefore, can not be covered by our review of the literature. Second, being limited to the period of 2002 to 2006, the literature studied does not incorporate the most recent developments in computer science, medical informatics, and engineering. In particular, progress in mobile computing technology is substantial, for instance in location-based services. We are aware also of the prevalent time lags between system development, system description, submission and publication of articles.

Our approach does not allow drawing conclusions on whether the results presented in this review are altered by technological progress. In addition, we can not conclude whether the results would be similar for systems not covered by the literature. Therefore, a generalization of conclusions drawn from this literature review is not possible; all conclusions discussed are drawn from the case studies reviewed.

Furthermore, although the inclusion criteria for systems mentioned above are broadly defined and based on previous research, other pervasive computing experts, authors, users etc. may regard other features as decisive.

Conclusion

This review provides an overview of the literature on a broad and heterogeneous range of pervasive computing systems related to health care. Most systems are described in their prototype stages in which developers only rarely report about deployment issues. Since the identifying and solving such issues is decisive for the diffusion of promising systems, a need for further focused research into the deployment of pervasive computing systems in health care is identified. Future research should focus on organizational as well as personnel implications, privacy concerns or financial issues. Systematic evaluations of the effectiveness and efficiency of pervasive computing systems are regarded as inevitable to ensure user acceptance, societal acceptability and financing.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

CO, AG, and TF contributed equally to the study design, literature search, reading, categorizing and analyzing. CO and AG prepared the manuscript, while TF revised it critically. CO was the initiator of the literature review and additionally performed supervisory tasks. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the librarians of the Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe Research Centre), especially Susanne Hill, for their professional, reliable and fast support in searching and obtaining literature. In addition, we are grateful for the helpful comments by the two referees, Kenneth Mandl and Torsten Eymann, as well as for the language improvements by Ralf Friese and Cindy Kim. Knud Böhle, Ulrich Riehm and Arnd Weber make helpful comments. Special thanks go to Carsten Holtmann, Asarnusch Rashid, Mandy Scheermesser, and Michaela Wölk of the PerCoMed project team for fruitful discussions and insights. The literature review is part of the "PerCoMed – Pervasive Computing in der vernetzten medizinischen Versorgung" (Pervasive Computing in Networked Medical Care) research project, which is financially supported in part by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) in the "Innovations- und Technikanalyse" ("Innovation and Technology Analysis") program (Foerderkennzeichen 16I1546).

 <p>Pervasive computing: a paradigm for the 21st century</p> Saha D Mukherjee A IEEE Computer 2003 36 3 25 31 10.1109/MC.2003.1185214 <p>Pervasive computing: vision and challenges</p> Satyanarayanan M IEEE Personal Communications 2001 8 4 10 17 10.1109/98.943998 <p>New Technologies For Ambient Intelligence</p> Alcañiz M Rey B The Evolution of Technology, Communication and Cognition Towards the Future of Human-Computer Interaction Amsterdam: IOS Press Riva G, Vatalaro F, Davide F, Alcañiz M 2005 3 15 <p>Issues and challenges in ubiquitous computing</p> Lyytinen K Yoo YJ Communications of the ACM 2002 45 12 62 65 10.1145/585597.585616 <p>Exploring the Business and Social Impacts of Pervasive Computing</p> Kenny L Zurich: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory, Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue, TA-Swiss; Published by Swiss Reinsurance Company 2006 <p>The business of pervasive healthcare</p> Wan D Taveras LE Pervasive Computing in Healthcare Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Bardram JE, Mihailidis A, Wan D 2007 275 298 <p>Mobile and personal health and wellness management systems</p> Mattila E Korhonen I Saranummi N Pervasive Computing in Healthcare Boca Raton: CRC Press Bardram JE, Mihailidis A, Wan D 2007 105 134 <p>Pervasive computing in hospitals</p> Bardram JE Baldus H Favela J Pervasive Computing in Healthcare Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Bardram JE, Mihailidis A, Wan D 2007 49 77 <p>Pervasive healthcare</p> Varshney U IEEE Computer 2003 36 12 138 140 10.1109/MC.2003.1250897 <p>Guest Editorial Introduction to the Special Section on Pervasive Healthcare</p> Korhonen I Bardram JE IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2004 8 3 229 234 10.1109/TITB.2004.835337 15484426 <p>The dark side of pervasive computing</p> Stone A IEEE Pervasive Computing 2003 2 1 4 8 10.1109/MPRV.2003.1186716 <p>Living in a world of smart everyday objects – Social, economic, and ethical implications</p> Bohn J Coroama V Langheinrich M Mattern F Rohs M Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2004 10 5 763 785 10.1080/10807030490513793 <p>Moving Out of the Lab: Deploying Pervasive Technologies in a Hospital</p> Hansen TR Bardram JE Soegaard M IEEE Pervasive Computing 2006 5 3 24 31 10.1109/MPRV.2006.53 <p>The Computer for the 21st Century. Specialized elements of hardware and software, connected by wires, radio waves and infrared, will be so ubiquitous that no one will notice their presence</p> Weiser M Scientific American (International Edition) 1991 265 3 66 75 <p>Scenarios for Ambient Intelligence in 2010. Final Report</p> IST Advisory Group (ISTAG) Seville: European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) 2001 <p>Context awareness in health care: A review</p> Bricon-Souf N Newman CR International Journal of Medical Informatics 2007 76 1 2 12 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.01.003 16488663 <p>Context-aware artifacts: two development approaches</p> Loke SW IEEE Pervasive Computing 2006 5 2 48 53 10.1109/MPRV.2006.27 <p>Reviewing the integration of patient data: how systems are evolving in practice to meet patient needs</p> Cruz-Correia RJ Vieira-Marques PM Ferreira AM Almeida FC Wyatt JC Costa-Pereira AM BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2007 7 1 14 10.1186/1472-6947-7-14 <p>A Taxonomy of Pervasive Healthcare Systems</p> Muras JA Cahill V Stokes EK 1st International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare 2006 Innsbruck, Austria: IEEE 2006 <p>Wearable systems for health care applications</p> Lukowicz P Kirstein T Troster G Methods of Information in Medicine 2004 43 3 232 238 15227552 <p>New perspectives on ubiquitous computing from ethnographic study of elders with cognitive decline</p> Morris M Lundell J Dishman E Needham B Ubicomp 2003: Ubiquitous Computing Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin 2003 2864 227 242 <p>A real-time, mobile phone-based telemedicine system to support young adults with type 1 diabetes</p> Farmer A Gibson O Hayton P Bryden K Dudley C Neil A Tarassenko L Informatics in Primary Care 2005 13 3 171 177 16259856 <p>Using pervasive computing to deliver elder care</p> Stanford V IEEE Pervasive Computing 2002 1 1 10 13 10.1109/MPRV.2002.993139 <p>Keeping a beat on the heart</p> Liszka KJ Mackin MA Lichter MJ York DW Dilip P Rosenbaum DS IEEE Pervasive Computing 2004 3 4 42 49 10.1109/MPRV.2004.10 <p>Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) by the U.S. National Library of Medicine</p> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html <p>Using a Home Automated Telemanagement (HAT) System: Experiences and Perceptions of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease</p> Castro HK Cross RK Finkelstein J AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2006 872 1839272 17238492 <p>The impact of behavioral monitoring technology on the provision of health care in the home</p> Glascock AP Kutzik DM Journal of Universal Computer Science 2006 12 1 59 79 <p>Stress monitoring using a distributed wireless intelligent sensor system</p> Jovanov E O'Donnell Lords A Raskovic D Cox PG Adhami R Andrasik F IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 2003 22 3 49 55 10.1109/MEMB.2003.1213626 <p>Remote patient monitoring and information system</p> Al-Rousan M Al-Ali AR Eberlein A International Journal of Electronic Healthcare 2006 2 3 231 249 18048247 <p>Tele-homecare for chronically ill persons: pilot trials, medical outcomes and future perspectives</p> Robinson S Stroetmann KA Stroetmann VN Stud Health Technol Inform 2004 103 197 205 15747921 <p>Health. Care. Anywhere. Today</p> Andre D Teller A Stud Health Technol Inform 2005 118 89 110 16301772 <p>Telesurveillance of elderly patients by use of passive infra-red sensors in a 'smart' room</p> Banerjee S Steenkeste F Couturier P Debray M Franco A Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2003 9 1 23 29 12641889 10.1258/135763303321159657 <p>An intelligent emergency response system: preliminary development and testing of automated fall detection</p> Lee T Mihailidis A Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2005 11 4 194 198 15969795 10.1258/1357633054068946 <p>A Smart Sensor to Detect the Falls of the Elderly</p> Sixsmith A Johnson N IEEE Pervasive Computing 2004 3 2 42 47 10.1109/MPRV.2004.1316817 <p>TeleCARE: Collaborative virtual elderly care support communities</p> Camarinha-Matos LM Afsarmanesh H Journal on Information Technology in Healthcare 2004 2 2 73 86 <p>Workplace response to virtual caregiver support and remote home monitoring of elders: The WIN project</p> Mahoney DF Tarlow B Stud Health Technol Inform 2006 122 676 680 17102349 <p>Automatic intelligent data analysis in sensor networks for iSpace</p> Nauck DD Majeed B BT Technology Journal 2004 22 3 216 224 10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047135.14579.32 <p>Inferring activities from interactions with objects</p> Philipose M Fishkin KP Perkowitz M Patterson DJ Fox D Kautz H Hähnel D IEEE Pervasive Computing 2004 3 4 50 57 10.1109/MPRV.2004.7 <p>Real Time Location System over WiFi in a Healthcare Environment</p> Schrooyen F Baert I Truijen S Pieters L Denis T Williame K Weyn M Journal on Information Technology in Healthcare 2006 4 6 401 416 <p>Social networks as health feedback displays</p> Morris ME IEEE Internet Computing 2005 9 5 29 37 10.1109/MIC.2005.109 <p>AMON: a wearable multiparameter medical monitoring and alert system</p> Anliker U Ward JA Lukowicz P Tröster G Dolveck F Baer M Keita F Schenker EB Catarsi F Coluccini L IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2004 8 4 415 427 10.1109/TITB.2004.837888 15615032 <p>Wearable devices for telemedicine applications</p> Scheffler M Hirt E Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2005 11 11 14 16035978 10.1258/1357633054461994 <p>Pervasive Observation Medicine: The Application of RFID to Improve Patient Safety in Observation Unit of Hospital Emergency Department</p> Chen CI Liu CY Li YC Chao CC Liu CT Chen CF Kuan CF Stud Health Technol Inform 2005 116 311 315 16160277 <p>Safety portal: the safest goes through the air – ubiquitous high-risk reminders bridging out the patient safety in emergency department</p> Chen CI Choy CS Chu TB Lo YS Huang WK Kuan CF Li YC Stud Health Technol Inform 2006 124 77 82 17108507 <p>IT-based diagnostic instrumentation systems for personalized healthcare services</p> Chun H Kang J Kim KJ Park KS Kim HC Stud Health Technol Inform 2005 117 180 190 16282668 <p>The LifeShirt: a multi-function ambulatory system monitoring health, disease, and medical intervention in the real world</p> Grossman P Stud Health Technol Inform 2004 108 133 141 15718639 <p>Implementation of wireless technology in advanced clinical practice</p> Øyri K Balasingham I Høgetveit JO Stud Health Technol Inform 2006 122 730 733 17102360 <p>Testing the usability of two automated home-based patient-management systems</p> Farzanfar R Finkelstein J Friedman RH Journal of Medical Systems 2004 28 2 143 153 10.1023/B:JOMS.0000023297.50379.3c 15195845 <p>Mobile phone technology in the management of asthma</p> Ryan D Cobern W Wheeler J Price D Tarassenko L Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2005 11 Suppl 1 43 46 16035991 10.1258/1357633054461714 <p>Airmed-cardio: a GSM and Internet services-based system for out-of-hospital follow-up of cardiac patients</p> Salvador CH Pascual Carrasco M González de Mingo MA Muñoz Carrero A Márquez Montes J Sosa Martín L Cavero MA Fernández Lozano I Monteagudo JL IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2005 9 1 73 85 10.1109/TITB.2004.840067 15787010 <p>A multi-functional, portable device with wireless transmission for home monitoring of children with a learning disability</p> Tura A Badanai M Longo D Quareni L Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2004 10 5 298 302 15494089 10.1258/1357633042026369 <p>Wireless home monitoring and health care activity management through the Internet in patients with chronic diseases</p> Tura A Quareni L Longo D Condoluci C van Rijn A Albertini G Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine 2005 30 4 241 253 16531352 10.1080/14639230500170587 <p>Cyber crumbs for successful aging with vision loss</p> Ross DA IEEE Pervasive Computing 2004 3 2 30 35 10.1109/MPRV.2004.1316815 <p>MASCAL: RFID tracking of patients, staff and equipment to enhance hospital response to mass casualty events</p> Fry EA Lenert LA AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2005 261 265 1560691 16779042 <p>A Blood Bag Temperature Monitoring Device to Improve Transfusion Practice</p> Hanada E Inaba S Nose Y Journal on Information Technology in Healthcare 2003 1 3 211 220 <p>Evaluation of an infrared/radiofrequency equipment-tracking system in a tertiary care hospital</p> Østbye T Lobach DF Cheesborough D Lee AM Krause KM Hasselblad V Bright D Journal of Medical Systems 2003 27 4 367 380 10.1023/A:1023709421380 12846468 <p>Healthwear: medical technology becomes wearable</p> Pentland A IEEE Computer 2004 37 5 42 49 10.1109/MC.2004.1297238 <p>Multicentre evaluation of a rule-based data filter for home monitoring of implanted cardioverter defibrillators</p> Sinha AM Koos R Markus KU Diem BH Urbaszek A Hanrath P Stellbrink C Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2006 12 2 97 102 16539758 10.1258/135763306776084347 <p>Trans-telephonic monitoring of continuous haemodynamic measurements in heart failure patients</p> Kjellström B Igel D Abraham J Bennett T Bourge R Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2005 11 5 240 244 16035966 10.1258/1357633054471795 <p>Context-aware middleware solutions for anytime and anywhere emergency assistance to elderly people</p> Bottazzi D Corradi A Montanari R IEEE Communications Magazine 2006 44 4 82 90 10.1109/MCOM.2006.1632653 <p>A wireless PDA-based physiological monitoring system for patient transport</p> Lin Y-H Jan IC Ko PCI Chen Y-Y Wong J-M Jan G-J IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2004 8 4 439 447 10.1109/TITB.2004.837829 15615034 <p>An evaluation of the west Surrey telemedicine monitoring project</p> Dale J Connor S Tolley K Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2003 9 S39 S41 12952718 10.1258/135763303322196295 <p>Integration of information technology, wireless networks, and personal digital assistants for triage and casualty</p> Zhao X Rafiq A Hummel R Fei DY Merrell RC Telemedicine Journal and E-Health 2006 12 4 466 474 16942419 10.1089/tmj.2006.12.466 <p>RTWPMS: a real-time wireless physiological monitoring system</p> Lin BS Lin BS Chou NK Chong FC Chen SJ IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2006 10 4 647 656 10.1109/TITB.2006.874194 17044398 <p>Assessment of elderly mobility using a remote multisensor monitoring system</p> Chan M Campo E Esteve D Stud Health Technol Inform 2002 90 72 77 15460664 <p>Validation of a remote monitoring system for the elderly: application to mobility measurements</p> Chan M Campo E Laval E Estève D Technol Health Care 2002 10 5 391 399 12368559 <p>Automated analysis of nursing home observations</p> Hauptmann AG Gao J Yan R Qi Y Yang J Wactlar HD IEEE Pervasive Computing 2004 3 2 15 21 10.1109/MPRV.2004.1316813 <p>Impact of monitoring technology in assisted living: outcome pilot</p> Alwan M Dalal S Mack D Kell SW Turner B Leachtenauer J Felder R IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2006 10 1 192 198 10.1109/TITB.2005.855552 16445264 <p>Lessons learned from the Hospital Without Walls project</p> Dadd M Doyle B Wilson L Gunaratnam M Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2002 8 11 14 12537891 10.1258/13576330260440709 <p>Challenges to physicians' use of a wireless alert pager</p> Reddy MC Pratt W McDonald DW Shabot MM AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2003 544 548 1480301 14728232 <p>Technology, work, and information flows: lessons from the implementation of a wireless alert pager system</p> Reddy MC McDonald DW Pratt W Shabot MM Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2005 38 3 229 238 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.010 15896696 <p>The installation and support of internationally distributed equipment for people with dementia</p> Adlam T Faulkner R Orpwood R Jones K Macijauskiene J Budraitiene A IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2004 8 3 253 257 10.1109/TITB.2004.834393 15484430 <p>Wearable systems in nursing home care: Prototyping experience</p> Drugge M Hallberg J Parnes P Synnes K IEEE Pervasive Computing 2006 5 1 86 91 10.1109/MPRV.2006.20 <p>"You have a message here": Enhancing interpersonal communication in a hospital ward with location-based virtual notes</p> Dahl Y Methods of Information in Medicine 2006 45 6 602 609 17149501 <p>Supporting information access in a hospital ward by a context-aware mobile electronic patient record</p> Skov M Høegh RT Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 2006 V10 4 205 214 10.1007/s00779-005-0049-0 <p>Activity-based computing: support for mobility and collaboration in ubiquitous computing</p> Bardram JE Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 2005 9 5 312 322 10.1007/s00779-004-0335-2 <p>Telesurveillance of Geriatric Patients in a Hospital Using Passive Infra-red Sensors</p> Steenkeste F Banerjee S Courturier P Journal of Information Technology in Healthcare 2005 3 2 89 100 <p>Handheld computer-based decision support reduces patient length of stay and antibiotic prescribing in critical care</p> Sintchenko V Iredell JR Gilbert GL Coiera E Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005 12 4 398 402 1174884 15802478 10.1197/jamia.M1798 <p>Experimenting with ubiquitous computing technologies in productive environments</p> Schmidt A Alt F D W Niggemann J Feussner H Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik 2006 123 4 135 139 10.1007/s00502-006-0328 <p>NOAH – a mobile emergency care system</p> Schaechinger U Rockelein W Perk A Asbach P Nerlich M Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2003 97 147 158 15537239 <p>Design and development of a mobile system for supporting emergency triage</p> Michalowski W Slowinski R Wilk S Farion KJ Pike J Rubin S Methods of Information in Medicine 2005 44 1 14 24 15778790 <p>MET System: A New Approach to m-Health in Emergency Triage</p> Michalowski W Słowiñski R Wilk S Journal on Information Technology in Healthcare 2004 2 4 237 249 <p>A study of the use of hand-held devices in an emergency department</p> Gururajan R Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2004 10 Supplement 1 33 35 10.1258/1357633042614438 <p>A Jini-based solution for electronic prescriptions</p> Ghinea G Asgari S Moradi A Serif T IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2006 10 4 794 802 10.1109/TITB.2006.879586 17044413 <p>Mobile phone-based surveillance of cardiac patients at home</p> Scherr D Zweiker R Kollmann A Kastner P Schreier G Fruhwald FM Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2006 12 5 255 261 16848939 10.1258/135763306777889046 <p>Assistive embedded technologies</p> Narasimhan P IEEE Computer 2006 39 7 85 87 10.1109/MC.2006.221 <p>Developing and evaluating a wireless speech-and-touch-based interface for intelligent comprehensive triage support systems</p> Chang P Sheng YH Sang YY Wang DW Hsu YS Hou IC Stud Health Technol Inform 2006 122 693 697 17102352 <p>Telemedicine experience for chronic care in COPD</p> de Toledo P Jiménez S del Pozo F Roca J Alonso A Hernandez C IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2006 10 3 567 573 10.1109/TITB.2005.863877 16871726 <p>Rationale Technikfolgenbeurteilung. Konzepte und methodische Grundlagen</p> Grunwald A Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 1999 <p>A new research challenge: Persuasive technology to motivate healthy aging</p> Intille SS IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 2004 8 3 235 237 10.1109/TITB.2004.835531 15484427 <p>Battlefield Medical Information System-Tactical (BMIST): The application of mobile computing technologies to support health surveillance in the Department of Defense</p> Morris TJ Pajak J Havlik F Kenyon J Calcagni D Telemedicine Journal and E-Health 2006 12 4 409 416 16942412 10.1089/tmj.2006.12.409

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/8/26/prepub