Moral distress and ethical decision-making of eldercare professionals involved in digital service transformation

References

• Tuckett AG. Virtuous principles as an ethic for nursing. Contemp Nurs. 2000;9(2):106–114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cronqvist A, Theorell T, Burns T, et al. Caring about-caring for: moral obligations and work responsibilities in intensive care nursing. Nurs Ethics. 2004;11(1):63–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puig de la Bellacasa M. Ethical doings in naturecultures. Ethics Place Environ. 2010;13(2):151–169.
   Google Scholar
• Sandman L, Kjellström S. Etikboken: etik för vårdande yrken [The book on ethics: ethics for care professionals]. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Beauchamp T. Philosophical ethics: an introduction to moral philosophy. 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Kohlberg L. Moral stages and moralization’. Moral Dev Behav. 1976;5:31–53.
   Google Scholar
• Somers MJ. Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: a study of the relationship between codes of conduct, employee behavior and organizational values. J Business Ethic. 2001;30(2):185–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christoffersen SA. Professionsetik (Gleerups). 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Löfqvist C, Slaug B, Ekström H, et al. Use, non-use and perceived unmet needs of assistive technology among Swedish people in the third age. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11(3):195–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin D, Adshead S, Glennon B, et al. Assisted living technologies for older and disabled people in 2030’, A final report to Ofcom. London: Plum Consulting; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann B. Ethical challenges with welfare technology: a review of the literature. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(2):389–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez VG, Taylor I, Bing-Jonsson PC. Ethics of smart house welfare technology for older adults: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(6):691–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coeckelbergh M. Artificial agents, good care, and modernity. Theor Med Bioeth. 2015;36(4):265–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokke R. “Maybe we should talk about it anyway”: a qualitative study of understanding expectations and use of an established technology innovation in caring practices. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):657.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Axelsson K, Harrefors C, Sävenstedt S, et al. E-Health in care of older persons in the future. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19:54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolkowska E, Avatare Nöu A, Sjölinder M, et al. To capture the diverse needs of welfare technology stakeholders–evaluation of a value matrix. In International conference on human aspects of IT for the aged population. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2017. p. 404–419.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke AE, Shim JK, Mamo L, et al. Biomedicalization: technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and US biomedicine’. Biomed Technosci Health Illn. 2003;47–87.
   Google Scholar
• Nam S, Han SH, Gilligan M. Internet use and preventive health behaviors among couples in later life: evidence from the health and retirement study. Gerontologist. 2019;59(1):69–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frennert S, Östlund B. Narrative review: technologies in eldercare. J Adhesion Sci Technol. 2018;6(1):21–34.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek PP. Materializing morality: design ethics and technological mediation’. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2006;31:361–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeek PP. Beyond interaction: a short introduction to mediation theory. Interactions. 2015;22(3):26–31.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek PP. Toward a theory of technological mediation. Technoscience and Postphenomenology: the Manhattan. Lanham (MD): Lexington Books; 2015. p. 189–204.
   Google Scholar
• de La Bellacasa MP. Matters of care in technoscience: assembling neglected things. Soc Stud Sci. 2011;41(1):85–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brall C, Schröder-Bäck P, Maeckelberghe E. Ethical aspects of digital health from a justice point of view. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29(3):18–22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sidgwick H. The methods of ethics. Glasgow: Good Press; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Noddings N. Starting at home: caring and social policy. Berkeley (CA): University of California. Press; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Childress JF, Beauchamp TL. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linzer N. An ethical dilemma in home care. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2002;37(2):23–34.
   Google Scholar
• Mahoney DF. An evidence-based adoption of technology model for remote monitoring of elders’ daily activities. Ageing Int. 2011;36(1):66–81.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness: establishing a fair process for priority setting is easier than agreeing on principles. BMJ. 2000;321:1300–1301.
   Google Scholar
• Meiland F, Innes A, Mountain G, et al. Technologies to support community-dwelling persons with dementia: a position paper on issues regarding development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;4(1):e1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brey P. Anticipating ethical issues in emerging IT. Ethics Inf Technol. 2012;14(4):305–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann B. Hvordan vurdere etiske aspekter ved moderne helse-og velferdsteknologi? Tidsskr Omsorgsforsk. 2019;5(03):99–116.
   Google Scholar
• Brey P. Anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies. Nanoethics. 2012;6(1):1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brey P. Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Tech Res Philos Technol. 2010;14:36–48.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson SO. How to perform an ethical risk analysis (eRA). Risk Anal. 2018;38(9):1820–1829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwortnik RJ, Jr. Clarifying “fuzzy” hospitality-management problems with depth interviews and qualitative analysis. Cornell Hotel Restaurant Administrat Quart. 2003;44(2):117–129.
   Google Scholar
• Council, Swedish Research. Good research practice. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Research Council Stockholm; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann H, Hayes J. The growing need for home care workers: improving a low-paid, female-dominated occupation and the conditions of its immigrant workers. Public Policy Aging Rep. 2017;27:88–95.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes LJB, Moore S. Care in a time of austerity: the electronic monitoring of homecare workers’ time’. Gender Work Organ. 2017;24:329–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushniruk A, Nøhr C. Participatory design, user involvement and health IT evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;222:139–151.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grönvall E, Kyng M. On participatory design of home-based healthcare. Cogn Technol Work. 2013;15:389–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woelders S, Abma T. Participatory action research to enhance the collective involvement of residents in elderly care: about power, dialogue and understanding. Action Res. 2019;17(4):528–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosjean S, Bonneville L, Redpath C. The design process of an mHealth technology: the communicative constitution of patient engagement through a participatory design workshop. ESSACHESS J Commun Stud. 2019;12:5–26.
   Google Scholar
• Ericson Lidman E, Strandberg G. Care providers’ troubled conscience related to an implementation of a time management system in residential care for older people—a participatory action research study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2020;34(3):745–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekkarinen S, Melkas H. Welfare state transition in the making: focus on the niche-regime interaction in Finnish elderly care services. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2019;145:240–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie D, Wajcman J. The social shaping of technology. London: Open University Press; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker WE, Huges TP, Trevor P. Social construction of technological systems. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Kamp A, Obstfelder A, Andersson K. Welfare technologies in care work. Nordic J Work Life Stud. 2019;9(S5)12.
   Google Scholar
• Ertner M. Enchanting, evoking, and affecting: the invisible work of technology implementation in homecare. Nordic J Working Life Stud. 2019;9:33–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cozza M. Interoperability and convergence for welfare technology. International conference on human aspects of IT for the aged population. Las vegas (NV): Springer; 2018. p. 13–24.
   Google Scholar
• Zander V, Johansson-Pajala RM, Gustafsson C. Methods to evaluate perspectives of safety, independence, activity, and participation in older persons using welfare technology. A systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;15:373–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen AM, Grosen SL. Transforming bodywork in eldercare with wash-and-dry toilets. Nordic J Work Life Stud. 2019;9:49–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• la Cour A, Højlund H. Untimely welfare technologies. Nordic J Work Life Stud. 2019;9(S5):69–87.
   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
• Mol A, Moser I, Pols J. Care: putting practice into theory’. Care in practice: on tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. Vol. 8. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Verlag; 2010. p. 7–27.
   Google Scholar
• Pols J. Wonderful webcams: about active gazes and invisible technologies’. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2011;36:451–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pols J, Willems D. Innovation and evaluation: taming and unleashing telecare technology’. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33(3):484–498.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marziali E, Serafini JMD, McCleary L. A systematic review of practice standards and research ethics in technology-based home health care intervention programs for older adults. J Aging Health. 2005;17(6):679–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robillard JM, Cleland I, Hoey J, et al. Ethical adoption: a new imperative in the development of technology for dementia. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(9):1104–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fetherstonhaugh D, McAuliffe L, Bauer M, et al. Decision-making on behalf of people living with dementia: how do surrogate decision-makers decide? J Med Ethics. 2017;43(1):35–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemeijer AR, Frederiks BJ, Riphagen II, et al. Ethical and practical concerns of surveillance technologies in residential care for people with dementia or intellectual disabilities: an overview of the literature. Int Psychogeriatr. 2010;22(7):1129–1142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein EG, Whitehead PB, Prompahakul C, et al. Enhancing understanding of moral distress: the measure of moral distress for health care professionals. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 2019;10(2):113–124.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ellis P. Understanding ethics for nursing students (learning matters). 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Milliken A, Grace P. Nurse ethical awareness: understanding the nature of everyday practice. Nurs Ethics. 2017;24(5):517–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gidlund KL, Sundberg L. Undisclosed practices of digitalization-A critical analysis of representational practice and power. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Baudin K, Gustafsson C, Frennert S. Views of Swedish elder care personnel on ongoing digital transformation: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e15450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver M. The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disabil Soc. 2013;28:1024–1026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burchardt T. Capabilities and disability: the capabilities framework and the social model of disability. Disabil Soc. 2004;19:735–751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anastasiou D, Kauffman JM. The social model of disability: dichotomy between impairment and disability. J Med Philos. 2013;38:441–459.
   Google Scholar
• Astell AJ, Bouranis N, Hoey J, et al. Technology and dementia: the future is now. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2019;47(3):131–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berridge C. Breathing room in monitored space: the impact of passive monitoring technology on privacy in independent living. Gerontologist. 2016;56(5):807–816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berridge C, Wetle TF. Why older adults and their children disagree about in-home surveillance technology, sensors, and tracking’. Gerontologist. 2020;60(5):926–934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neven L. But obviously not for me’: robots, laboratories and the defiant identity of elder test users’. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32:335–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peine A, Rollwagen I, Neven L. The rise of the “innosumer”—Rethinking older technology users. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2014;82:199–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winner L. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus. 1980;109:121–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour B, Venn C. Morality and technology. Theory Cult Soc. 2002;19:247–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman D. The design of everyday things: revised and expanded edition (Basic books). 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Oudshoorn N, Pinch T. ‘How users matter’, The Co. 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson L, Hutchings D, Corner L, et al. Balancing rights and risks: Conflicting perspectives in the management of wandering in dementia. Health Risk Soc. 2007;9:389–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deen MJ. Information and communications technologies for elderly ubiquitous healthcare in a smart home. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2015;19(3–4):573–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghasemi F, Rezaee A, Rahmani AM. Structural and behavioral reference model for IoT‐based elderly health‐care systems in smart home. Int J Commun Syst. 2019;32(12):e4002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamp A, Obstfelder A, Andersson K. ‘Welfare technologies in care work’. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Hofmann B. Too much technology. BMJ. 2015;350:1–7.
   Google Scholar