Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40273064›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

"It is very convenient when it works - successes and challenges with welfare technology" - a qualitative study.

Samantha A Svärdh, Giana Carli Lorenzini, Ulli Samuelsson, Steven M Schmidt, Susanne Iwarsson, Sofi Fristedt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Samantha A SvärdhDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1009-6431
Giana Carli LorenziniDepartment of Engineering Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.
Ulli SamuelssonSchool of Education and Communication, Jönköping University, Sweden.
Steven M SchmidtDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden.
Susanne IwarssonDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6670-7952
Sofi FristedtDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Welfare technology (WT) use is increasingly advocated to facilitate aging in place. However, it remains unclear how older adults and homecare staff perceive these digital technologies in practice. This qualitative study investigated the ways in which current WT either facilitated or fell short in supporting older adults in their daily lives and homecare staff at work. Four key themes were developed using thematic analysis: 1) Successes and challenges with ease of use (i.e., how simple it is to interact with the WT); 2) Successes and challenges with usefulness (i.e., how effective the WT is in achieving its intended purpose); 3) Challenges with appearance, sounds and physical location; and 4) Challenges with technical maintenance and vulnerabilities. Findings revealed paradoxes in both older adult and homecare staff user perceptions. For instance, some successes with WT's usefulness were highlighted, like GPS safety alarms in supporting older adult independence. However, challenges in usefulness were also exposed, like staff hiding "overused" safety alarms. Except for the medication robot, none of the WT devices clearly alleviated anticipated homecare staff shortages. WT perceived as auditorily or visually inadequate, that required more effort than users could comfortably manage, or that organizations could seamlessly integrate, were generally regarded as challenging. To overcome such challenges, greater involvement from older adults and homecare staff in the design and implementation of WT within homecare contexts is necessary. Refined criteria for prescribing WT to individuals, particularly regarding cognitive status, are additionally recommended by the researchers.

Identifiers

PMID40273064
PMCPMC12021168

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.