Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26880671›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

SCALS: a fourth-generation study of assisted living technologies in their organisational, social, political and policy context.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Sara Shaw, Joe Wherton, Gemma Hughes, Jenni Lynch, Christine A'Court, Sue Hinder, Nick Fahy, Emma Byrne, Alexander Finlayson and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sara ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Joe WhertonBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Gemma HughesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jenni LynchDepartment of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Christine A'CourtNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sue HinderBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Nick FahyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Emma ByrneBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Alexander FinlaysonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tom SorellDepartment of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Rob ProcterDepartment of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Rob StonesSociology and Criminology Department, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

Department of Health RP-DG-1213-10003Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT104830MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResearch to date into assisted living technologies broadly consists of 3 generations: technical design, experimental trials and qualitative studies of the patient experience. We describe a fourth-generation paradigm: studies of assisted living technologies in their organisational, social, political and policy context. Fourth-generation studies are necessarily organic and emergent; they view technology as part of a dynamic, networked and potentially unstable system. They use co-design methods to generate and stabilise local solutions, taking account of context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SCALS (Studies in Co-creating Assisted Living Solutions) consists (currently) of 5 organisational case studies, each an English health or social care organisation striving to introduce technology-supported services to support independent living in people with health and/or social care needs. Treating these cases as complex systems, we seek to explore interdependencies, emergence and conflict. We employ a co-design approach informed by the principles of action research to help participating organisations establish, refine and evaluate their service. To that end, we are conducting in-depth ethnographic studies of people's experience of assisted living technologies (micro level), embedded in evolving organisational case studies that use interviews, ethnography and document analysis (meso level), and exploring the wider national and international context for assisted living technologies and policy (macro level). Data will be analysed using a sociotechnical framework developed from structuration theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval for the first 4 case studies has been granted. An important outcome will be lessons learned from individual co-design case studies. We will document the studies' credibility and rigour, and assess the transferability of findings to other settings while also recognising unique aspects of the contexts in which they were generated. Academic outputs will include a cross-case analysis and progress in theory and method of fourth-generation assisted living technology research. We will produce practical guidance for organisations, policymakers, designers and service users.

Indexed as

Independent LivingPolicyPoliticsProgram EvaluationSocial SupportAnthropology, CulturalHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchTechnologyUnited Kingdomco-designnew models of careorganisational case studystructurationtelecaretelehealth

Identifiers

PMID26880671
PMCPMC4762149

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.