Fall Prevention and Rapid Response Systems: Do They Keep Older Adults Safe or Push Them into Loneliness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18034193Keywords:
Family Support, Smart Sensors , Falls , Loneliness, Older AdultsAbstract
Purpose: This review aimed to examine whether fall-prevention and rapid-response technologies enhance safety while potentially contributing to social isolation and perceived loneliness among older adults. Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted, focusing on fall-prevention and emergency-response technologies used by older adults, including wearable devices, smart sensors, home-based monitoring systems, and mobile applications. Studies addressing safety outcomes, independent living, social engagement, loneliness, privacy concerns, and digital exclusion were synthesized. Results: The findings indicate that fall-prevention and rapid-response technologies support independent living and enable timely intervention through remote monitoring by family members and caregivers. These systems contribute positively to individual safety and provide reassurance for both older adults and their families. However, excessive reliance on technology may reduce face-to-face interactions, increase privacy-related concerns, and weaken social connectedness. Furthermore, older adults with limited technological competence appear to be at greater risk of digital exclusion, which may intensify feelings of loneliness and social isolation. Conclusion: Fall-prevention and rapid-response technologies should be implemented as part of a holistic care approach that integrates family involvement, social support networks, and community-based programs. When used as complementary tools rather than substitutes for human interaction, these technologies can enhance safety while preserving meaningful social relationships and psychosocial well-being among older adults.References
Abdul Rahman, K., Ahmad, S. A., Che Soh, A., Ashari, A., Wada, C., & Gopalai, A. A. (2023). Improving fall detection devices for older adults using Quality Function Deployment (QFD) approach. Gerontology & Geriatric Medicine, 9, 23337214221148245. [CrossRef]
Balcı E, Aslan GK. (2025). Older adults’ experiences and perceptions of using digital technology for health purposes: A qualitative study. Geriatr Nurs, 65:103490. [CrossRef] [ PubMed]
Fothergill, L., Hayes, N., Latham, Y., & Holland, C. (2023). Understanding the value of a proactive telecare system in supporting older adults’ independence at home: Qualitative interview study among key interest groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e47997. [CrossRef]| [PubMed]
Ghorayeb, A., Comber, R., & Gooberman-Hill, R. (2023). Development of a smart home interface with older adults: Multi-method co-design study. JMIR Aging, 6, e44439. [CrossRef]
McKenna AC, Kloseck M, Crilly R, Polgar J. (2015). Purchasing and Using Personal Emergency Response Systems (PERS): how decisions are made by community-dwelling seniors in Canada. BMC Geriatr, 11;15:81. [CrossRef][ PubMed]
Moore, K., O’Shea, E., Kenny, L., Barton, J., Tedesco, S., Sica, M., Crowe, C., Alamäki, A., Condell, J., Nordström, A., & Timmons, S. (2021). Older adults’ experiences with using wearable devices: Qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(11), e28023. [CrossRef]
Pajalic Z, Olsen SEG, Hamre A, Strøm BS, Clausen C, Saplacan D, Kulla G. (2024). Home living older adults' subjective perceptions, evaluation, and interpretations of various welfare technology: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Public Health Pract (Oxf), 19;7:100470. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pareto Boada J., Román Maestre B., & Torras Genís C. (2021). The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: A critical literature review. Technology in Society, 67, 101726. [CrossRef ]
Sames K. M. et al. (2025). A Qualitative Exploration of Older Adults’ and Their Family Members’ Views on Smart Home Technology in Aging in Place. Sage Open (2025). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stokke, R. (2016). The personal emergency response system as a technology innovation in primary health care services: An integrative review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(7), e187. [CrossRef ] [PubMed]
Tian, Y. J. A., Felber, N. A., Pageau, F., Schwab, D. R., & Wangmo, T. (2024). Benefits and barriers associated with the use of smart home health technologies in the care of older persons: A systematic review. BMC Geriatrics, 24(1), 152. [CrossRef ]
Warner G., Weeks L. E., Chen Y-T., Hiebert B., Ledoux K. & Donelle L. (2023). Key informant perceptions of challenges and facilitators to implementing passive remote monitoring technology for home care clients. Gerontechnology, 22(1), 1–13. [CrossRef]
Warrington, D. J., Shortis, E. J., & Whittaker, P. J. (2021). Are wearable devices effective for preventing and detecting falls? An umbrella review (a review of systematic reviews). BMC Public Health, 21, 2091. [CrossRef ]
Simbrig I., Vigl S., & Bernhart J. (2025). Acceptance of aging-in-place technologies: Older adults’ perspectives. Journal of Aging & Technology, Advance online publication. [CrossRef].
Yeoh Lui CX, Yang N, Tang A, Tam WWS. (2025). Effectiveness Evaluation of Smart Home Technology in Preventing and Detecting Falls in Community and Residential Care Settings for Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 26(1):105347. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Active & Healthy Aging

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
