Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36812629›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2023

Welfare technology interventions among older people living at home-A systematic review of RCT studies.

Zada Pajalic, Diana Aguiar de Sousa, Benedicte Sørensen Strøm, Hilde Lausund, Grete Breievne, Sezer Kisa, Diana Saplacan, Marie Hamilton Larsen, Nina Jøranson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Zada PajalicVID Specialized University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Sustainable Healthcare and Welfare Technology (SHWT) Research Group, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9656-1926
Diana Aguiar de SousaDepartment of Neurosciences and Mental Health, Hospital de Santa Maria, Lisbon, Portugal.
Benedicte Sørensen StrømLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.
Hilde LausundVID Specialized University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Sustainable Healthcare and Welfare Technology (SHWT) Research Group, Oslo, Norway.
Grete BreievneDepartment of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Drammen, Norway.
Sezer KisaOslo Metropolitan University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Diana SaplacanDepartment of Informatics, University of Oslo, Robotics and Intelligent Systems (ROBIN) Research Group, Oslo, Norway.
Marie Hamilton LarsenLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9113-1062
Nina JøransonVID Specialized University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Sustainable Healthcare and Welfare Technology (SHWT) Research Group, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The main goal of health services is for the elderly to maintain their mental and physical health and live at home independently for as long as possible. Various technical welfare solutions have been introduced and tested to support an independent life. The aim of this systematic review was to examine different types of interventions and assess the effectiveness of welfare technology (WT) interventions for older people living at home. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020190316) and followed the PRISMA statement. Primary randomized control trial (RCT) studies published between 2015 and 2020 were identified through the following databases: Academic, AMED, Cochrane Reviews, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Twelve out of 687 papers met the criteria for eligibility. We used risk-of-bias assessment (RoB 2) for the included studies. Based on the RoB 2 outcomes that showed a high risk of bias (>50%) and high heterogeneity of quantitative data, we decided to narratively summarize the study characteristics, outcome measures, and implications for practice. The included studies were conducted in six countries, namely the USA, Sweden, Korea, Italy, Singapore, and the UK. One was conducted in three European countries (the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland). A total of 8437 participants were sampled, and individual study sample sizes ranged from 12 to 6742. Most of the studies were two-armed RCTs, except for two that were three-armed. The duration of the welfare technology tested in the studies ranged from four weeks to six months. The employed technologies were commercial solutions, including telephones, smartphones, computers, telemonitors, and robots. The type of interventions were balance training, physical exercise and function, cognitive training, monitoring of symptoms, activation of emergency medical systems, self-care, reduction of death risk, and medical alert protection systems. The latter studies were the first of their kind and suggested that physician-led telemonitoring could reduce length of hospital stay. In summary, welfare technology seems to offer solutions to supporting elderly people at home. The results showed a wide range of uses for technologies for improving mental and physical health. All studies showed encouraging results for improving the participants' health status.

Identifiers

PMID36812629
PMCPMC9931340

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.