Hitting a moving target: digital transformation and welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare

References

• Peine A, Faulkner A, Jaeger B, et al. Science, technology and the ‘grand challenge’of ageing—understanding the socio-material constitution of later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015;93:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Comission E. The digital economy and society index (DESI): European Comission. 2019. [cited 2019 Jun 24]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi
   Google Scholar
• Pamela Davidsson MPoAsMM. Svenskarna och internet 2018 [Swedes and the Internet 2018]. Stockholm (Sweden): Internetstiftelsen; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsen ER, Dugstad J, Eide H, et al. Exploring resistance to implementation of welfare technology in municipal healthcare services–a longitudinal case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickström G, Regner Å, Micko L. Vision eHealth 2025 common starting points for digitization in social services and health and medical care. In: Affairs MoHaS, editor. Stockholm (Sweden): Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1000387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott RE, Mars M. Principles and framework for eHealth strategy development. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottweis H. 17 Rhetoric in policy making: between logos, ethos, and pathos. Handbook of public policy analysis. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2007. p. 237.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen C, Tragardh B. Narrating the Triple Helix concept in” weak” regions: lessons from Sweden. Int J Technol Manag. 2004;27:513–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trydegård GB, Thorslund M. Inequality in the welfare state? Local variation in care of the elderly–the case of Sweden. Int J Soc Welfare. 2001;10:174–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagen K. Innovasjon i omsorg [Innovations in Care]. Norweigan omsorgsdepartementet (Department of care and social services); 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Kolkowska E, Nöu AA, Sjölinder M, et al. editors. To capture the diverse needs of welfare technology stakeholders–evaluation of a value matrix. International conference on human aspects of IT for the aged population. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Modig A. Välfärdsteknologi inom äldreomsorgen: en kartläggning av samtliga Sveriges kommuner [Welfare technology in eldercare: a screening of all Swedish Municipalities]. Stockholm (Sweden): Hjälpmedelsinstitutet; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Erlingsdóttir G, Sandberg H. eHealth opportunities and challenges: a white paper. Lund (Sweden): Lund University; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Gard G, Wikman AM. E-hälsa: innovationer, metoder, interventioner och perspektiv [eHealth: innovations, methods and perspectives]. Stockholm (Sweden): Studentlitteratur; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Wickström G, Regner Å, Micko L. Vision eHealth 2025. Stockholm (Sweden): Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Kane GC, Palmer D, Phillips AN, et al. Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2015;14:1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald M, Kruschwitz N, Bonnet D, et al. Embracing digital technology: a new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2014;55:1.
   Google Scholar
• Sjöberg PO, Olsson S, Larsen CP. Lägesrapport om välfärdsteknik till Socialstyrelsen. 2014. [Retrived 2018 June 4]. Available from: https://www.sics.se/sites/default/files/pub/sics_till_socialstyrelsen_lagesrapport_valfardsteknik.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ceruzzi PE. Moore’s law and technological determinism: reflections on the history of technology. Technol Cult. 2005;46:584–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blix M, Jeansson J. Telemedicine and the welfare state: the Swedish experience. Stockholm (Sweden): Research Institute of Industrial Economics; 2018 (IFN Working Paper).
   Google Scholar
• Davidsson P, Thoresson A. Svenskarna och internet 2017: Undersökning om svenskarnas internetvanor. Stockholm (Sverige): IIS, Internetstiftelsen i Sverige; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Wicks P, Massagli M, Frost J, et al. Sharing health data for better outcomes on PatientsLikeMe. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12:e19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupton D. The digitally engaged patient: self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Soc Theory Health. 2013;11:256–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertner M. Different generalizations of the elderly in design of welfare technology. Sts Encount Dasts Work Paper Ser. 2016;8:1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Stokke R. The personal emergency response system as a technology innovation in primary health care services: an integrative review. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:e187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinder S, Greenhalgh T. “This does my head in.” Ethnographic study of self-management by people with diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garmann-Johnsen NF, Eikebrokk TR. Dynamic capabilities in e-health innovation: implications for policies. Health Policy Technol. 2017;6:292–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharff RC, Dusek V. Philosophy of technology: the technological condition: an anthology. 2nd ed. London (UK): Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker WE, Huges TP, Trevor P. Social construction of technological systems. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg A. Critical theory of technology. Vol. 5. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Miller CR. Technology as a form of consciousness: a study of contemporary ethos. Commun Stud. 1978;29:228–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazerman C. The production of technology and the production of human meaning. J Bus Tech Commun. 1998;12:381–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergschöld JM. Domesticating homecare services; vehicle route problem solver displaced. Nord J Sci Technol Stud. 2016;4:41–53.
   Google Scholar
• Alami A. Why do information technology projects fail? Proc Comput Sci. 2016;100:62–71.
   Google Scholar
• Heffernan N. Capital, class and technology in contemporary American culture projecting post-Fordism USA. London (UK): Pluto Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Katz SB. The ethic of expediency: classical rhetoric, technology, and the Holocaust. Coll Engl. 1992;54:255–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government S. Satsning på kortare köer och en tillgänglig vård och omsorg 2018. Available from: https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2018/04/satsning-pa-kortare-koer-och-en-tillganglig-vard-och-omsorg/
   Google Scholar
• Ekholm A, Jebari K, Markovic D. FÖRBJUDEN FRAMTID? {Forbidden Future}. Den digitala kommunen, Underlagsrapport till Kommunutredningen (Fi 2017: 2). Stockholm (Sweden): The Institute for Futures Studies (Institutet för Framtidsstudier); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Winner L. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus. 1980;109:121–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989;13:319–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 2003;27:425–478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodhue DL, Thompson RL. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quart. 1995;19:213–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Boston (MA): Addison-Wesley; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Geels F, Schot J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy. 2007;36:399–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geels F. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy. 2002;31:1257–1274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sovacool BK, Hess D. Ordering theories: typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Soc Stud Sci. 2017;47:703–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shove E, Trentmann F, Wilk R. Time, consumption and everyday life: practice, materiality and culture. Oxford (MA): Berg; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Macedo IM. Predicting the acceptance and use of information and communication technology by older adults: an empirical examination of the revised UTAUT2. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;75:935–948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pal D, Funilkul S, Charoenkitkarn N, et al. Internet-of-things and smart homes for elderly healthcare: an end user perspective. IEEE Access. 2018;6:10483–10496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertner M. Enchanting, evoking, and affecting: the invisible work of technology implementation in homecare. Nord J Work Life Stud. 2019;9: 51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schot J, Geels FW. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 2008;20:537–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson C, Forzati M. Effekter av digitala tjänster för äldrevård: en ekonomisk studie [Enabled digital home care–A study of economic gains] Stockholm (Sweden): Department for Networking Transmission, Acreo; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• NBHW. eHälsa och välfärdsteknik i kommunerna 2018 [ehealth and welfare technology in the municipalities]. In: [NBHW] NBoHaW, editor. Stockholm, Sweden: National Board of Health and Welfare [NBHW]; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Hui A, Schatzki T, Shove E. The nexus of practices: connections, constellations, practitioners. London (UK): Routledge; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Frennert S, Östlund B. Narrative review: technologies in eldercare. Nord J Sci Technol Stud. 2018;6:21–34.
   Google Scholar
• Holmström J, Robey D. Inscribing organizational change with information technology: an actor network theory approach. Actor-network theory organizing. Malmö: Liber; 2005. p. 165–187.
   Google Scholar
• Downes L. The laws of disruption. New York (NY): Basic Book; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Krishnan V, Bhattacharya S. Technology selection and commitment in new product development: the role of uncertainty and design flexibility. Manage Sci. 2002;48:313–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collingridge D. The social control of technology. New York (NY): Palgrave Macmillan; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Tannert C, Elvers HD, Jandrig B. The ethics of uncertainty: in the light of possible dangers, research becomes a moral duty. EMBO Rep. 2007;8:892–896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallach W. A dangerous master: how to keep technology from slipping beyond our control. London (UK): Basic Books; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Søndergård D, Hadnagy J, Danielsson Öberg A, et al. “Välfärdsteknik handlar inte om teknik utan om människor”:–tekniksprång i nordisk demensvård. [Welfare technology is not about technology but people]. Stockholm (Sweden): Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Saborowski M, Kollak I. “How do you care for technology?”–Care professionals’ experiences with assistive technology in care of the elderly. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015;93:133–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Poel I. Society as a laboratory to experiment with new technologies. In: Diana M, Bowman ES, Arie R, editor. Embedding new technologies into society: a regulatory, ethical societal perspective. New York (NY): Pan Stanford; 2017. p. 61–68.
   Google Scholar
• Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:7–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douma KF, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJ, et al. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:162–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiran AH, Oudshoorn N, Verbeek PP. Beyond checklists: toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. J Responsible Innov. 2015;2:5–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamp A, Hansen AM. Negotiating professional knowledge and responsibility in cross-sectoral telemedicine. Nord J Work Life Stud. 2019;9(S5).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez-Criado T, López D, Roberts C, et al. Installing telecare, installing users: felicity conditions for the instauration of usership. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2014;39:694–719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Cour A, Højlund H. Untimely welfare technologies. Nord J Work Life Stud. 2019;9(S5).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen AM, Grosen SL. Transforming bodywork in eldercare with wash-and-dry toilets. Nord J Work Life Stud. 2019;9(S5).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luff P, Hindmarsh J, Heath C. Workplace studies: recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn N. Diagnosis at a distance: the invisible work of patients and healthcare professionals in cardiac telemonitoring technology. Soc Health Illness. 2008;30:272–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pols J, Willems D. Innovation and evaluation: taming and unleashing telecare technology. Soc Health Illness. 2011;33:484–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konrad K, Rip A, Greiving-Stimberg VCS. Constructive technology assessment–STS for and with technology actors. EASST Rev. 2017;36(3).
   Google Scholar
• Schot J, Rip A. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecasting Soc Change. 1997;54:251–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip A, Te Kulve H. Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 2008. p. 49–70.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhlmann S. Technology assessment as constructive design and governance. The power of design. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2012. p. 100–109.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg R. Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. 2011. SSRN. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2436399
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy. 2013;42:1568–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen R, Stilgoe J, Macnaghten P, et al. A framework for responsible innovation. Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Vol. 31. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 27–50.
   Google Scholar
• Lee RG, Petts J. Adaptive governance for responsible innovation. Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 143–164.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl BC. Responsible research and innovation: the role of privacy in an emerging framework. Sci Public Policy. 2013;40:708–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veak TJ. Democratizing technology: Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology. Albany, New York (NY): Suny Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl BC, Coeckelbergh M. Ethics of healthcare robotics: towards responsible research and innovation. Robot Auton Syst. 2016;86:152–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frennert S. Lost in digitalization? Municipality employment of welfare technologies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018;1–8. DOI:10.1080/17483107.2018.1496362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frennert S. Older people meet robots. Lund (Sweden): Lund University; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• From DM. With a little help from a… machine. Digital welfare technology and sustainable human welfare. J Transdiscipl Environ Stud. 2015;14:52–64.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann B. Ethical challenges with welfare technology: a review of the literature. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19:389–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann B. Too much technology. BMJ. 2015;350:h705–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar