Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27143097›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016

What it Takes to Successfully Implement Technology for Aging in Place: Focus Groups With Stakeholders.

Sebastiaan Theodorus Michaël Peek, Eveline J M Wouters, Katrien G Luijkx, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
43.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT04884711 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Designing New Dignified Technologies for Care Settings in Participation With Older People.

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of BrightonRan2021 to 2021Enrolled10ConditionsDignity, Old Age, Debility, Healthy AgingArmsNo Interventions. Participants will be using their everyday digital health technologies., In depth Interviews, Focus Group Discussions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

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

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sebastiaan Theodorus Michaël PeekInstitute of Allied Health Professions, Chair of Health Innovations and Technology, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Eindhoven, Netherlands. research@sebastiaanpeek.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0105-4230
Tilburg University · NLFontys University of Applied Sciences · NLNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgingAttitude of Health PersonnelFocus GroupsNeeds AssessmentAdministrative PersonnelAgedBiomedical TechnologyCaregiversDelivery of Health CareFemaleGeriatricsGoalsHome Care ServicesHumansIndependent LivingMaleagedeHealthfocus groupshealth services for the elderlyimplementation managementindependent livingproject and people managementqualitative researchtechnology

Identifiers

PMID27143097
PMCPMC4904824
OpenAlexW2346611362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.