Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41306741›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2025

DIALOGUE: Digital care technologies for social connection, care and support of older adults.  Final Project Report.

Grant Gibson, Matthew Lariviere, Nicole Steils, Hannah Marston, Carolyn Wilson-Nash, Jennifer Lynch, Katie Brittain, Catherine Henderson, Joanna Thorn, Jo Worthington and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Grant GibsonFaculty of Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8249-4697
Matthew LariviereDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University Department of Nursing Midwifery and Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, NE1 8ST, UK.
Nicole SteilsNIHR Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, England, WC2R 2LS, UK.
Hannah MarstonSchool of Health, Wellbeing and Social Care, The Open University School of Health Wellbeing and Social Care, Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA, UK.
Carolyn Wilson-NashStirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, FK9 4LA, UK.
Jennifer LynchCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care., University of Hertfordshire Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, Hatfield, England, AL10 9AB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2601-7498
Katie BrittainPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, NE1 7RU, UK.
Catherine HendersonCare Policy and Evlauation Centre, The London School of Economic and Political Science Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London, England, WC2A 2AE, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4340-4702
Joanna ThornBristol Medical School, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 1NU, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8962-2428
Jo WorthingtonBristol Medical School, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 1NU, UK.
Katie PikeBristol Medical School, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, England, BS8 1NU, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9565-8993
Raj MehtaCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care., University of Hertfordshire Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, Hatfield, England, AL10 9AB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Despite significant social and financial investment, evidence suggests that technology-enabled care services (TECS) for older adults with assisted living needs fail to meet their potential. Simultaneously, an increasingly diverse range of care and consumer technologies are entering the market with the potential to deliver innovative, effective, cost-effective, and scalable social care services. However, there is limited evidence illustrating how novel digital technologies are currently being deployed across social care. Before high-quality evidence can be generated, we need a clearer sense of delivery, what outcomes are being achieved, and the factors influencing their implementation and adoption at scale. Methods: DIALOGUE identifies the novel digital care technologies being implemented for social care services for community-dwelling older adults with assisted living needs that have the greatest potential for future social care research. Working with two local authorities and an Integrated Care Board, DIALOGUE adopted a mixed methods approach, including a rapid review of academic and professional literature regarding technology implementation in social care, three co-production partnerships with older people with assisted living needs using digital technologies in social care services, a process evaluation of social care TEC delivery, and an e-Delphi survey of TECS staff. Results: Older adults using social care services identified priorities in relation to signposting and information seeking, safety, security and trust, and costs and financing technologies as key priorities. Local authorities highlighted building awareness and training in person-centred approaches to TECS, building the evidence base for TECS, and ensuring that commissioning and implementation of TECS is aligned with service user priorities. Conclusion: Project findings are being used to build a programme for future research regarding effective person-centred implementation of Social Care TECS. Initial work in building this agenda includes applications for NIHR research Health Technology Assessment and Research Programme for Social Care funding during 2024-2025.

Indexed as

digitalhospital dischargeolder adultsSocial caretechnology-enabled care services

Identifiers

PMID41306741
PMCPMC12645094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.