ArticleBMJ open2026
Examining care aides' perspectives and attitudes towards the adoption and sustainment of technology in care delivery: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCare aides deliver the majority of hands-on care in long-term care facilities. Despite this involvement in care, a paucity of research explores their perspectives and attitudes regarding the introduction and implementation of healthcare technology.
objectiveThis scoping review examined and synthesised available evidence regarding care aides' perspectives and attitudes towards healthcare technology and factors that may influence its adoption and sustainment. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Literature published within the past 22 years that examines care aides' perspectives and attitudes towards the use of technology in care delivery across any setting. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PROSPERO, Web of Science, which includes ProQuest Dissertation & Theses and JBI Evidence-Based Practice databases were searched using keywords (Care, Care Aides, Caregiver, Carer, Innovation, Nursing Assistant, Support Worker, Technology) for publications in any language. Grey literature, review articles and websites were also searched. CHARTING
methodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute method guided this scoping review. The search results were exported into a literature management tool for screening and analysis. Two authors undertook article screening. A framework for evaluating barriers and facilitators to innovation implementation and an innovation theory outlining the steps involved in innovation uptake guided the data analysis.
resultsAfter exclusions, 17 sources from 5 countries were included. One source was written in French, and the other 16 were in English. Settings ranged from home care, an academic medical centre, residential care facilities and a hospital. Findings suggest that care aides are open to technology when it supports workflow, improves care delivery, adequate training and support are provided, and they are involved in implementation. Adequate training can provide information about opportunities and challenges, facilitate clarity, a positive attitude, address misconceptions and negative attitudes care aides may have toward technology.
conclusionsThe limited available evidence suggests modifiable factors that might influence the uptake and implementation of healthcare technology from care aides' perspectives. Further research exploring care aides' attitudes towards health technology and their role in implementation is needed.
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.