Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39658795›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

It is a matter of convenience: why welfare technologies have become domesticated in Swedish eldercare.

Susanne Frennert, Katrin Skagert, Anna Williamsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Susanne FrennertDepartment of Design Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Susanne.frennert@design.lth.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-5469
Katrin SkagertDivision Digital Systems, RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Stockholm, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6583-7763
Anna WilliamssonDivision Digital Systems, RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Stockholm, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5879-2280

Funding

Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd 2023-00174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of welfare technology is gaining ground in municipal eldercare and is increasingly being integrated into everyday routines. However, the meanings that eldercare personnel attach to welfare technology in the care of older recipients, and thus the domestication of welfare technology, remain largely underexplored. This study explores how eldercare personnel understand and ascribe meanings to welfare technologies in their daily work, with the aim of understanding their domestication.

methodsThe empirical material comprised 181 photographs, each paired with corresponding text, from 61 participants across four municipalities in southern Sweden. The empirical material was thematically analysed, focusing on different categories of welfare technologies and their ascribed meanings. In our coding "convenience" and at times "inconvenience" were interpreted as recurrent patterns. Their repeated presence across various contexts and the meanings ascribed to different welfare technologies prompted deeper interpretive engagement, leading us to adopt it as a key theme. In the final step, the codes were synthesised through the lens of "convenience" to better understand the meanings participants attached to welfare technology in eldercare work.

resultsThe participants ascribed meanings to welfare technology that resonate with broader societal and cultural understandings of technological solutionism, while aligning with national policies promoting welfare technology as a means of supporting safety, activity and independence for older adults. Welfare technology was often understood as both convenient and an act of care. Our analysis uncovered different dimensions of "convenience", which we labelled as: "remote surveillance convenience", "logistics convenience", "communication convenience", "safety convenience", "comforting convenience" and "activation convenience". Yet, in some cases, welfare technology was also seen as a hindrance to care, being inconvenient due to its inflexibility, technical difficulties and the tendency to create duplicate tasks.

conclusionThis paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the domestication of welfare technology in eldercare. Our study found that eldercare personnel engage with and interpret welfare technologies by ascribing meanings related to perceived convenience - a concept not widely explored in this context. Welfare technologies were often seen as convenient substitutes for physical proximity and relational care, such as "remote surveillance convenience" through cameras and "comforting convenience" via robotic pets. However, convenience, while central to the participants' experiences, should not be understood as inherently "good" or positive but as part of the domestication process, shaped by socio-technical contexts and the political economy of eldercare, which prioritises effectiveness and efficiency. By shedding light on these dynamics, our study examines how the domestication of welfare technology is shaped by and reinforces broader discourses of technological solutionism, raising questions about its long-term impact on care practices.

Indexed as

Social WelfareAgedFemaleHealth Services for the AgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedSwedenConvenienceEldercare personnelScience and Technology Studies (STS)SwedenWelfare technology

Identifiers

PMID39658795
PMCPMC11629506

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.