ArticleNIHR open research2025
Adopting and embedding home sensors in social care: findings from a mixed methods, rapid evaluation.
Article in NIHR open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The growing pressure faced by adult social care in England has fuelled interest in technology-enabled care (TEC). This includes the use of sensor-based technology to monitor activity patterns for 'proactive' interventions and care. However, evidence on its effectiveness and use is limited to feasibility pilots, as opposed to business-as-usual. Working with three local authorities using home sensors, we sought to define good practices and draw transferable lessons on implementing and embedding this technology in routine care practice. Methods: Across all sites, we interviewed 51 staff and system stakeholders, 19 service users and family/informal caregivers. We also used secondary data to determine the feasibility of a full economic study. The analysis was guided by the NASSS (non-adoption, abandonment, and challenges to scale-up, spread and sustainability) framework to explore factors influencing implementation and sustained adoption of the technology in use. Results: Home sensors were used across multiple care contexts (assessment, reablement, and long-term care monitoring). Perceived value and impact included an increase in service user independence and safety, family/informal caregiver reassurance, identifying healthcare needs, providing more holistic and objective assessments, and supporting dialogue regarding care needs. However, evidence of the impact across these areas was limited, and we were unable to obtain the data required to undertake an economic analysis. Key issues to consider for sustained adoption include the materiality and dependability of the technology, compatibility with service users and their care networks, workforce knowledge and confidence, inter-organizational routines and coordination work, and strategic alignment. Conclusion: Our findings indicate the need to acknowledge the labor-intensive process of embedding and adapting the use of home sensors for proactive care. Decision makers need to focus on how to support and resource incremental and system wide-changes, with particular attention paid to ensuring technology dependability, 'wrap around' support, workforce knowledge and skills, co-adaptation of inter-organization routines, cross-stakeholder collaboration, and evaluation capabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.