A scoping review to explore the health, social and economic outcomes of home automation for people with disability

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow chart of study identification process.

A flow chart depicting the flow of studies through the different phases of the scoping review including the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the number of studies included in the final review.

Table 1. Study details.

Author, year, country of study	Aim	Sample and characteristics (where reported)	Type of home automation	Methods	Findings
Bridge et al. 2021 [7] Australia	To understand how a smart home control system can benefit older people and people with disabilities.	Individuals with moderate to severe functional limitations Survey n = 21 (7 males, 6 females, 8 missing) Age = 18+ 4 focus groups n = 24	Cameras, television, lights, kitchen appliances, air conditioning and heating, curtains, blinds, doors, fans, alert systems for dangerous items being unattended	Survey including the standardised tool (AQoL-4D) Focus groups	Home automation reduces reliance on care, increases independence, improve social and community connectedness, and improves mental health.
Callaway et al. 2016 [16] Australia	To evaluate the features of purpose-built apartment living on access, environmental control, and home and community mobility of people living with neurotrauma	Individuals with neurotrauma n = 3 (3 males) Age = 30–55 years	Doors, blinds, lighting, air conditioning, heating	Case studies, standardised tools (REIS-SF; PIADS)	Users experienced enhanced competence, independence, self-esteem, productivity, usefulness, self-confidence, quality of life, eagerness to try new things and ability to adapt to activities of daily living, and mobility.
Hooper et al. 2018 [22] Australia	To explore users’ experiences with smart-devices	Individuals with spinal cord injuries n = 5 (5 males) Age = 21 = 60	Telephones, televisions, air conditioning and heating	Semi-structured interviews	Participants believed smart-devices increased their ability to independently control aspects of their environment, reduced reliance on others, reduced carer hours, increased choice and gave opportunities for better connections with family.
Landuran et al. 2022 [17] France	To assess the usability of the smart home platform and the impact of the use	Individuals with down syndrome n = 8 (4 males, 4 females) Age = 26–46 years	Alert messages for dangerous items left unattended, door or fridge left open, voice-activated emails	Standardised tools (IALS; ARC; WHOQOL-Bref; RSE; PSWQ; PWS)	Results demonstrated positive impacts on living skills, self-determination, quality of life, self-esteem, anxiety, and psychological well-being.
Maggio et al. 2020 [18] Italy	To evaluate the effects of home automation on cognitive functions and personal/social autonomy	Individuals who had experienced a stroke n = 40 (22 males, 18 females) Mean age = 58 years	Air conditioning and heating, alerts for dangerous items left unattended	Standardised tools (HRS-D; SF-12; SASS; ADL, IADL)	Home automation improves social and cognitive functioning, autonomy and functional recovery in patients affected by chronic stroke.
Myburg et al. 2017 [23] Australia	To investigate environmental control systems’ prescription and utilisation from the consumer perspective.	Individuals with spinal cord injuries n = 15 (15 males, 3 females Age = 22–68 years	Air conditioning and heating, lights, fans, telephone, television, doors	Semi-structured interviews	Participants perceived improvements in autonomy, increased wellbeing, increased independence and reduced reliance on others.
Ocepek et al. 2013 [19] Slovenia	To identify if the use of home automation has positive impact on functional independence and occupational performance and satisfaction with occupational performance.	Individuals with disabilities (spinal cord injuries, neuromuscular disease, amputations, cerebral palsy, cerebral vascular insult) n = 59 (30 males, 29 females) Age = 24–81 years	Doors, windows, curtains, television, air conditioning and heating	Standardised tools (COPM; FIM)	Results demonstrated a higher occupational performance, satisfaction with performance and higher functional independence.
Squires et al. 2013 [20] U.K	To evaluate an environmental control system in a single case study	Individual with tetraplegia n = 1 (1 female) Age = 46 years	Switches, plug sockets, doors, lights, television, telephone, air conditioning and heating	Standardised tools (EQ-VAS; LOT-R; BI; FAI; GHQ-12; WHO-5	Increased activity for everyday tasks, increased independence and less reliance on carers.
Verdonck et al. 2014 [25] Ireland	To explore user’s experience of using an environmental control system.	Individuals with spinal cord injuries n = 6 (4 males, 2 females) Age = 22–65 years	Switches, plug sockets, telephone, television, lights, fans	Semi-structured interviews	Most participants experienced enjoyment by using an environment control system, were less reliant on others and were able to do daily activities.
Verdonck et al. 2018 [24] Ireland	To provide an in-depth exploration of the subjective meaning of Environmental Control System	Individuals with spinal cord injuries n = 5 (4 males, 1 females) Age = 22–55 years	Switches, plug sockets, telephone, television, lights, fans	In-depth interviews	The use of environmental control systems increased participants’ ability to make preferred, spontaneous choices, being able to carry out simple everyday activities, reduced reliance on carers, feeling good and feeling better about oneself, increased feelings of safety.
Wallock et al. 2021 [21] U.S.A	To understand smart home technology use and the impact of that use on occupational performance	Individuals with Motor Neurone disease n = 19 individuals (12 males, 7 females) Age = 26 -86 years	Audio, plug sockets, television, lights	Survey	Functional independence increased and participants became more engaged in daily activities.

AQoL-4D: The assessment of quality of life; REIS-SF: Residential environment impact survey – short form; PIADS: Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale; IALS: Inventory of Apartment Living Skills; WHOQOL-Bref: World Health Organization Quality of Life – Bref; RSE: Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem scale; PSWQ: anxiety with Penn State Worry Questionnaire; PWS: Psychological Well-being Scale; HRS-D: Hamilton Rating Scale Depression; SF-12: 12 item Short Form Survey; SASS: Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale; IADL: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale; ADL: Activities of Daily Living; COPM: Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; FIM: Functional Independence Measure; EQ-VAS: EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale; LOT-R: The Life Orientation Test; BI: The Barthel Index; FAI: Frenchay Activities Index; GHQ-12: The 12-item General Health Questionnaire; WHO-5: The World Health Organisation-Five Well-Being Index.

Table 2. Outcomes of each study.

	Daily activities	Reduced reliance on others (paid and non-paid)	Independence	Autonomy	Mental Health	Social and community connectedness	Safety
Bridge et al. 2021 [7]
Calloway et al. 2016 [16]
Hooper et al. 2018 [22]
Landuran et al. 2022 [17]
Maggio et al. 2020 [18]
Myburg et al. 2017 [23]
Ocepek et al. 2013 [19]
Squires et al. 2013 [20]
Verdonck et al. 2014 [25]
Verdonck et al. 2018 [24]
Wallock et al. 2021 [21]

Shaded cells indicate that this outcome measure was applied in this study.

Bridge C, Zmudzki F, Huang T, et al. Impacts of new and emerging assistive technologies for ageing and disabled housing, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited. AHURI Final Report. 2021.

 Google Scholar

Callaway L, Tregloan K, Williams G, et al. Evaluating access and mobility within a new model of supported housing for people with neurotrauma: a pilot study. Brain Impair. 2016;17(1):64–76.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hooper B, Verdonck M, Amsters D, et al. Smart-device environmental control systems: experiences of people with cervical spinal cord injuries. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(8):724–730.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Landuran A, Sauzéon H, Consel C, et al. Evaluation of a smart home platform for adults with Down syndrome. Assist Technol. 2022;1-11.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Maggio MG, Maresca G, Russo M, et al. Effects of domotics on cognitive, social and personal functioning in patients with chronic stroke: a pilot study. Disab Health J. 2020;13(1):100838.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Myburg M, Allan E, Nalder E, et al. Environmental control systems–the experiences of people with spinal cord injury and the implications for prescribers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(2):128–136.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ocepek J, Roberts AEK, Vidmar G. Evaluation of treatment in the smart home IRIS in terms of functional independence and occupational performance and satisfaction. Comput Math Meth Med. 2013;2013:926858.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Squires LA, Rush F, Hopkinson A, et al. The physical and psychological impact of using a computer-based environmental control system: a case study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(5):434–443.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Verdonck M, Steggles E, Nolan M, et al. Experiences of using an environmental control system (ECS) for persons with high cervical spinal cord injury: the interplay between hassle and engagement [article]. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(1):70–78.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Verdonck M, Nolan M, Chard G. Taking back a little of what you have lost: the meaning of using an environmental control system (ECS) for people with high cervical spinal cord injury [article]. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;13(8):785–790.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wallock KE, Cerny SL. Benefits of smart home technology for individuals living with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Assist Technol Outcomes Benef. 2021;15(1):132–138.

 Google Scholar