ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016
What it Takes to Successfully Implement Technology for Aging in Place: Focus Groups With Stakeholders.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04884711 (Designing New Dignified Technologies for Care Settings in Participation With Older People.), which is not on this map. Cited by 74 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Designing New Dignified Technologies for Care Settings in Participation With Older People.
Who cites it
74 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Affecting Clinician Readiness to Adopt Smart Home Technology for Remote Health Monitoring: Systematic Review.JMIR aging · 2024Pooled it
- Technological interventions in European dementia care: a systematic review of acceptance and attitudes among people living with dementia, caregivers, and healthcare workers.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- A Newly Developed Exergame-Based Telerehabilitation System for Older Adults: Usability and Technology Acceptance Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Trial
- What is required for digital care and support technologies to be experienced as good care by community-dwelling older adults? A qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Acceptance and impact of Technology-Enabled Care (TEC) among community-dwelling older adults: A rapid review.PLOS digital health · 2026Review
- Developing a Music-Based Mobile Health Intervention for Parents and Staff in Neonatal Care and Beyond: Online Focus Group Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2026Article
- Stakeholders' Perceived Benefits and Concerns Regarding Artificial Intelligence in the Care of Older Adults.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- Article
- Engaging Older Adults to Guide the Development of Passive Home Health Monitoring to Support Aging in Place.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A systematic review of unmet needs of older adults in home settings and their implications for novel technological solutions.Innovation in aging · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Older Adults on Assistive Technology: Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Implementation of New Technologies in an Aged Care Social Day Program: Mixed Methods Evaluation.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Identifying Contextual Factors That Shape Cybersecurity Risk Perception for Assisted Living and Health Care Technologies and Wearables: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Caregiving Artificial Intelligence Chatbot for Older Adults and Their Preferences, Well-Being, and Social Connectivity: Mixed-Method Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Successful ability to stay at home - an interview study exploring multiple diagnosed older persons and their relatives' experiences.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Determinants of Successful Implementation of Assistive Technologies for Dementia: Exploratory Survey.JMIR aging · 2024Article
- Improving the Acceptability and Implementation of Information and Communication Technology-Based Health Care Platforms for Older People With Dementia or Parkinson Disease: Qualitative Study Results of Key Stakeholders.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Stakeholder needs assessment for developing ageing in place solutions - a qualitative study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Navigating Challenges and Opportunities in Community-Based Interventions for Promoting Active Aging: A Systematic Review of the Roles of Technology.Innovation in aging · 2024Review
- Protocol for a co-design study for the development of a chronotherapeutic mobile health behaviour change intervention targeting light exposure among older adults.F1000Research · 2024Article
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a growing interest in empowering older adults to age in place by deploying various types of technology (ie, eHealth, ambient assisted living technology, smart home technology, and gerontechnology). However, initiatives aimed at implementing these technologies are complicated by the fact that multiple stakeholder groups are involved. Goals and motives of stakeholders may not always be transparent or aligned, yet research on convergent and divergent positions of stakeholders is scarce.
objectiveTo provide insight into the positions of stakeholder groups involved in the implementation of technology for aging in place by answering the following questions: What kind of technology do stakeholders see as relevant? What do stakeholders aim to achieve by implementing technology? What is needed to achieve successful implementations?
methodsMono-disciplinary focus groups were conducted with participants (n=29) representing five groups of stakeholders: older adults (6/29, 21%), care professionals (7/29, 24%), managers within home care or social work organizations (5/29, 17%), technology designers and suppliers (6/29, 21%), and policy makers (5/29, 17%). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsStakeholders considered 26 different types of technologies to be relevant for enabling independent living. Only 6 out of 26 (23%) types of technology were mentioned by all stakeholder groups. Care professionals mentioned fewer different types of technology than other groups. All stakeholder groups felt that the implementation of technology for aging in place can be considered a success when (1) older adults' needs and wishes are prioritized during development and deployment of the technology, (2) the technology is accepted by older adults, (3) the technology provides benefits to older adults, and (4) favorable prerequisites for the use of technology by older adults exist. While stakeholders seemed to have identical aims, several underlying differences emerged, for example, with regard to who should pay for the technology. Additionally, each stakeholder group mentioned specific steps that need to be taken to achieve successful implementation. Collectively, stakeholders felt that they need to take the leap (ie, change attitudes, change policies, and collaborate with other organizations); bridge the gap (ie, match technology with individuals and stimulate interdisciplinary education); facilitate technology for the masses (ie, work on products and research that support large-scale rollouts and train target groups on how to use technology); and take time to reflect (ie, evaluate use and outcomes).
conclusionsStakeholders largely agree on the direction in which they should be heading; however, they have different perspectives with regard to the technologies that can be employed and the work that is needed to implement them. Central to these issues seems to be the tailoring of technology or technologies to the specific needs of each community-dwelling older adult and the work that is needed by stakeholders to support this type of service delivery on a large scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.