Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38355464›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2024

Benefits and barriers associated with the use of smart home health technologies in the care of older persons: a systematic review.

Yi Jiao Angelina Tian, Nadine Andrea Felber, Félix Pageau, Delphine Roulet Schwab, Tenzin Wangmo

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
134.9field-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.

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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  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. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Yi Jiao Angelina TianInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, 4056, Switzerland. Angelina.tian@unibas.ch.
Nadine Andrea FelberInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, 4056, Switzerland.
Félix PageauCentre d'excellence sur le vieillissement de Québec, VITAM- Research Center on Sustainable Health, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Delphine Roulet SchwabSchool of nursing sciences, La Source, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Western Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Tenzin WangmoInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, 4056, Switzerland.
University of Basel · CHHES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland · CHUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmart home health technologies (SHHTs) have been discussed in the frame of caregiving to enable aging-in-place and independence. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to gather the up-to-date knowledge on the benefits and barriers of using SHHTs in the care of older persons from the perspective of older persons and their caregivers.

methodsTen electronic databases were reviewed for empirical peer-reviewed literature published from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2021 in English, German, and French reporting on experimental, qualitative, quantitative, and other empirical study designs were included. Included studies contained user-feedback from older persons over 65 years of age or their caregivers (formal and informal). We used an extraction document to collect relevant data from all included studies and applied narrative synthesis to analyze data related to benefits and barriers of SHHTs.

results163 empirical peer-reviewed articles were included, the majority of those published between 2014 and 2021. Five first-order categories of benefits and five of barriers were found with individual sub-themes. SHHTs could be useful in the care context where continuous monitoring is needed. They improve self-management and independent living of older persons. Barriers currently exist with respect to ease of usability, social acceptance, and cost.

conclusionsSHHTs could be useful in the care context but are not without concerns. Researchers and policy makers can use the information as a starting point to better understand how the roles and outcomes of SHHTs could be improved for the care of older persons, while caregivers of older adults could use our findings to comprehend the scope of SHHTs and to decide when and where such technology could best address their individual family needs. Limitations lie in the possible exclusion of relevant articles published outside the inclusion criteria as well as the fact that due to digital divide, our review represents opinions of those who could and wanted to participate in the included 163 studies.

trial registrationThis review has been registered as PROSPERO CRD42021248543. A protocol was completed in March 2021 with the PRISMA-P guidance. We have extended the review period from 2000 to 2020 since the registration of the protocol to 2000-2021.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesAgedAged, 80 and overBiomedical TechnologyCaregiversHumansIndependent LivingTelemedicineCaregivingHomeIndependent livingOlder peopleSmart home health technologies

Identifiers

PMID38355464
PMCPMC10865618
OpenAlexW4391822097

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.