Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41212519›Full record

ArticleThe Gerontologist2025

Real-time location system implementation in dementia care: Stakeholder perspectives.

Alisa Grigorovich, Kelsey Harvey, AnneMarie Levy, Lynn Haslam-Larmer, Leia C Shum, Andrea Iaboni, Josephine McMurray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Gerontologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Alisa GrigorovichRecreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5363-7396
Kelsey HarveyExperiential Studies in Community and Sport, Cape Breton University, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2117-6278
AnneMarie LevyRecreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3252-5269
Lynn Haslam-LarmerKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2554-1981
Leia C ShumKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8464-3403
Andrea IaboniKITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4268-6832
Josephine McMurrayLazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5607-3781

Funding

AMS Healthcare Fellowship in Compassion and Artificial Intelligence
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesDespite interest in using real-time location systems (RTLS) to improve quality and efficiency of care and to collect data for the development of clinical algorithms, research on their implementation and use in long-term care homes is scarce. This study examines RTLS implementation in one long-term care home identifying failure points, ethical tensions, and sociotechnical misalignments that led to abandonment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 47 participants (residents, care partners, direct care staff, managers, administrators) across two time points; all also completed a demographic survey. Thematic analysis of the data was guided by the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability framework, and Sociotechnical Systems theory.

resultsInitial enthusiasm for RTLS stemmed from safety and efficiency expectations, but misaligned functionalities, limited staff engagement, and ethical tensions undermined adoption. Stakeholders anticipated real-time monitoring and fall detection, neither of which were provided. Residents frequently removed the wearables, citing discomfort and privacy, while staff encountered barriers due to the limited integration of the RTLS into workflows. Ethical tensions emerged as residents' autonomy and preferences were overridden by care partners. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: These failures underscore the need for iterative and participatory approaches to implementation, transparent communication, and stakeholder alignment. The findings highlight the sociotechnical complexities of implementing surveillance technologies in long-term care. Ethical concerns surrounding resident autonomy, workforce surveillance, and data governance, must be addressed in future implementations to ensure that RTLS supports rather than compromises the dignity and rights of residents and staff.

Indexed as

DementiaHomes for the AgedNursing HomesAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicLong-Term CareMaleQualitative ResearchStakeholder ParticipationArtificial intelligenceEvaluationSociotechnical systems

Identifiers

PMID41212519
PMCPMC12688440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.