Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33761880›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2021

Smart@home - supporting safety and mobility of elderly and care dependent people in their own homes through the use of technical assistance systems and conventional mobility supporting tools: a cross-sectional survey.

Deborah Elisabeth Jachan, Ursula Müller-Werdan, Nils Axel Lahmann, Sandra Strube-Lahmann

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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.

Deborah Elisabeth JachanDepartment of Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. deborah.jachan@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0002-9646-6360
Ursula Müller-WerdanDepartment of Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Nils Axel Lahmann *Department of Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Sandra Strube-Lahmann *Department of Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of technical solutions and conventional mobility supporting aids can support the independence of people into old age in their own homes. However, we found relatively few empirical investigations on the effects and costs of these systems.

methodsThe aim of the study was to investigate usability, user satisfaction and the correlation between costs and benefits of different built-in smart home solutions and conventional mobility supporting tools in the home of elderly, partially care-dependent tenants (> 65 years). A cross-sectional survey was conducted from February to March 2018 with tenants of a housing association in apartments equipped with smart home technology and conventional mobility supporting tools. The response rate in the intervention group was n = 37 persons (out of 46 tenants with installed smart home and conventional solutions) and in the control group n = 64 persons (out of 100 tenants without built-in smart home and conventional solutions). Data were collected by a written questionnaire regarding usability and satisfaction of the tenants with the built-in smart home solutions and conventional mobility supporting tools. In addition, both the intervention and the control group were asked general questions about communication, safety and how to deal with the need for long-term care in their own living environment.

resultsResults showed that with regard to usability, satisfaction and price performance ratio of the installed smart home solutions, the installation of the corresponding solutions with an overall score of 1.41 (on a scale of 1 (very good) to 6 (unsatisfactory)) was mostly positively evaluated by the tenants. Overall, users rated the installed smart home solutions better than the conventional mobility supporting tools (such as handholds and increased balcony floor level).

conclusionsAnalysis of the price performance ratio showed that smart home solutions are generally more expensive than conventional tools, but also contribute significantly to an increased security of the tenants, and thus may enable longer living in a familiar environment. We recommend modularized offers consisting of various components of smart home solutions, since this significantly reduces installation costs and allows for an individual composition according to requirements. Moreover, smart home solutions should be considered to be listed as medical aids.

Indexed as

HousingTechnologyAgedCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPersonal SatisfactionCommunicationMobilityQuality of lifeSafetySmart homeUsabilityUser satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID33761880
PMCPMC7992959

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.