Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25902803›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2015

What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Rob Procter, Joe Wherton, Paul Sugarhood, Sue Hinder, Mark Rouncefield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Determinants of Attitude to a Humanoid Social Robot in Care for Older Adults: A Post-Interaction Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, 2nd floor, New Radcliffe House, Walton St, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. trish.greenhalgh@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Rob ProcterDepartment of Computer Science, Queen Mary University, Coventry, UK. rob.procter@warwick.ac.uk.
Joe WhertonCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK. j.wherton@qmul.ac.uk.
Paul SugarhoodEast London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Paul.Sugarhood@eastlondon.nhs.uk.
Sue HinderDepartment of Computer Science, Queen Mary University, Coventry, UK. suehinderraftresearch@hotmail.co.uk.
Mark RouncefieldDepartment of Computing, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. m.rouncefield@lancaster.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe sought to define quality in telehealth and telecare with the aim of improving the proportion of patients who receive appropriate, acceptable and workable technologies and services to support them living with illness or disability.

methodsThis was a three-phase study: (1) interviews with seven technology suppliers and 14 service providers, (2) ethnographic case studies of 40 people, 60 to 98 years old, with multi-morbidity and assisted living needs and (3) 10 co-design workshops. In phase 1, we explored barriers to uptake of telehealth and telecare. In phase 2, we used ethnographic methods to build a detailed picture of participants' lives, illness experiences and technology use. In phase 3, we brought users and their carers together with suppliers and providers to derive quality principles for assistive technology products and services.

resultsInterviews identified practical, material and organisational barriers to smooth introduction and continued support of assistive technologies. The experience of multi-morbidity was characterised by multiple, mutually reinforcing and inexorably worsening impairments, producing diverse and unique care challenges. Participants and their carers managed these pragmatically, obtaining technologies and adapting the home. Installed technologies were rarely fit for purpose. Support services for technologies made high (and sometimes oppressive) demands on users. Six principles emerged from the workshops. Quality telehealth or telecare is 1) ANCHORED in a shared understanding of what matters to the user; 2) REALISTIC about the natural history of illness; 3) CO-CREATIVE, evolving and adapting solutions with users; 4) HUMAN, supported through interpersonal relationships and social networks; 5) INTEGRATED, through attention to mutual awareness and knowledge sharing; 6) EVALUATED to drive system learning.

conclusionsTechnological advances are important, but must be underpinned by industry and service providers following a user-centred approach to design and delivery. For the ARCHIE principles to be realised, the sector requires: (1) a shift in focus from product ('assistive technologies') to performance ('supporting technologies-in-use'); (2) a shift in the commissioning model from standardised to personalised home care contracts; and (3) a shift in the design model from 'walled garden', branded products to inter-operable components that can be combined and used flexibly across devices and platforms. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0305-8.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversFemaleFrail ElderlyHealth Services for Persons with DisabilitiesHealth Services for the AgedHome Care ServicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentPatient Acceptance of Health CarePersons with Disabilities

Identifiers

PMID25902803
PMCPMC4407351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.