Om trångboddhet : Hur storleken på våra bostäder blev ett välfärdsproblem

About crowding – How the size of our dwellings became a welfare problem Housing policy documents have traditionally been studied by political scientists, resulting in a lack of interest in the private aspects of housing policy. Hence, this paper uses the example of crowding standards to examine how a previously private matter, the size of our dwelling, became a concern of the state. Official governmental documents are analyzed with the help of discourse theory, working on the supposition that the need of the population and the framing of a problem changes over time. The first official standard of crowding, formulated in 1946 argue for larger dwelling size in order to increase the size and quality of the Swedish population. The second standard, formulated in 1965, is based on the assumption that the population, defined as consumers, demands larger sized homes. The final standard, formulated in 1975, claims that larger sized homes is a social right.

Tha contribution of home-based technology to older people's quality of life in extra care housing

Background: British government policy for older people focuses on a vision of active ageing and independent living. In the face of diminishing personal capacities, the use of appropriate home-based technology (HBT) devices could potentially meet a wide range of needs and consequently improve many aspects of older people's quality of life such as physical health, psychosocial well-being, social relationships, and their physical or living environment. This study aimed to examine the use of HBT devices and the correlation between use of such devices and quality of life among older people living in extra-care housing (ECH).  Methods: A structured questionnaire was administered for this study. Using purposive sampling 160 older people living in extra-care housing schemes were selected from 23 schemes in England. A face-to-face interview was conducted in each participant's living unit. In order to measure quality of life, the SEIQoL-Adapted and CASP-19 were used.  Results: Although most basic appliances and emergency call systems were used in the living units, communally provided facilities such as personal computers, washing machines, and assisted bathing equipment in the schemes were not well utilised. Multiple regression analysis adjusted for confounders including age, sex, marital status, living arrangement and mobility use indicated a coefficient of 1.17 with 95% CI (0.05, 2.29) and p = 0.04 [SEIQoL-Adapted] and 2.83 with 95% CI (1.17, 4.50) and p = 0.001 [CASP-19].  Conclusions: The findings of the present study will be value to those who are developing new form of specialised housing for older people with functional limitations and, in particular, guiding investments in technological aids. The results of the present study also indicate that the home is an essential site for developing residential technologies.