Implementation of welfare technology: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators

References

• Heine S. Winther Wehner L. Etik och välfärdsteknologi [Ethics and Welfare Technology]. Stockholm (Sweden): Nordic Welfare Centre; 2012. [cited 2021 May 20] Available from: https://nordicwelfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Inspirasjonshefte201_enk.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Welfare technology [Internet]. Nordic Welfare Centre; 2019. [cited 2020 Dec 22]. Available from: https://nordicwelfare.org/en/welfare-policy/welfare-technology/2019.
   Google Scholar
• Termbanken. Välfärdsteknik [welfare technology] [Internet]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2015. [cited 2020 Dec 22]. Available from: http://termbank.socialstyrelsen.se/showterm.php?fTid=798.
   Google Scholar
• Greve B. What characterise the Nordic welfare state model. J Soc Sci. 2007;3(2):43–51.
   Google Scholar
• Hall AK, Chavarria E, Maneeratana V, et al. Health benefits of digital videogames for older adults: a systematic review of the literature. Games ealth Health J. 2012;1(6):402–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(4):1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onwumere J, Amaral F, Valmaggia LR. Digital technology for caregivers of people with psychosis: systematic review. JMIR Ment Health. 2018;5(3):e55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez 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
• SBU. Välfärdsteknik – Digitala verktyg som social stimulans för äldre personer med eller vid risk för psykisk ohälsa [Welfare technology – digital tools for social stimulance for older persons who risk mental ill-health]. Stockholm: Statens beredning för medicinsk och social utvärdering (SBU); 2017. (SBU-rapport nr 268).
   Google Scholar
• Frennert S, Östlund B. Narrative review: welfare technologies in eldercare. NJSTS. 2018;6(1):21–34.
   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(1):657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues. Welfare technology and chronic illnesses, unleashing the hidden potential! Nordic Think Tank for welfare technology. Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Nordic Welfare Centre. Welfare technology. Toolbox. Stockholm: Nordic Welfare Centre; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Frennert S. Lost in digitalization? Municipality employment of welfare technologies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(6):635–642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg Å. Samhällsekonomiska nordiska studier inom välfärdsområdet. En kartläggning. [Socio-economic Nordic studies in the welfare area. A mapping study]. Stockholm: Hjälpmedelsinstitutet; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues. Making implementation easier. Nordic Think Tank for welfare technology. Stockholm: Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Nordic Welfare Centre. How can welfare technology work better across sectors in the Nordic welfare model? Nordic Think Tank for welfare technology. Stockholm: Nordic Welfare Centre; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane; 2020. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
   Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PloS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, et al. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3):240–243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas J, O’Mara-Eves A, Harding A, et al. Synthesis methods for combining and configurating textual or mixed methods data. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editor. An introduction to systematic reviews. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Arthanat S, Wilcox J, Macuch M. Profiles and predictors of smart home technology adoption by older adults. OTJR. 2019;39(4):247–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beedholm K, Frederiksen K, Frederiksen A-MS, et al. Attitudes to a robot bathtub in Danish elder care: a hermeneutic interview study. Nurs Health Sci. 2015;17(3):280–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentley CL, Powell LA, Orrell A, et al. Addressing design and suitability barriers to Telecare use: has anything changed? TAD. 2015;26(4):221–235.
   Google Scholar
• Bradford DK, Van Kasteren Y, Zhang Q, et al. Watching over me: positive, negative and neutral perceptions of in-home monitoring held by independent-living older residents in an Australian pilot study. Ageing Soc. 2018;38(7):1377–1398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäccman C, Bergkvist L, Kristensson P. Elderly and care personnel’s user experiences of a robotic shower. JET. 2020;14(1):1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Cajita MI, Hodgson NA, Wai Lam K, et al. Facilitators of and barriers to mHealth adoption in older adults with heart failure. Comput Inform Nurs. 2018;36(8):376–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtney KL. Privacy and senior willingness to adopt smart home information technology in residential care facilities. Methods Inf Med. 2008;47(1):76–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courtney KL, Demiris G, Rantz M, et al. Needing smart home technologies: the perspectives of older adults in continuing care retirement communities. Inform Prim Care. 2008;16(3):195–201.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demiris G, editor. Privacy and social implications of distinct sensing approaches to implementing smart homes for older adults. Proceedings of the 31st Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS; 2009 Sept 2–6; Minneapolis, Minnesota. IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2009. P. 4311–4314.
   Google Scholar
• Fritz RL, Corbett CL, Vandermause R, et al. The influence of culture on older adults’ adoption of smart home monitoring. Gerontechnology. 2016;14(3):146.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, et al. Analysing the role of complexity in explaining the fortunes of technology programmes: empirical application of the NASSS framework. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):66.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hall A, Brown Wilson C, Stanmore E, et al. Implementing monitoring technologies in care homes for people with dementia: a qualitative exploration using Normalization Process Theory. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;72:60–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaschinski C, Allouch SB. Listening to the ones who care: exploring the perceptions of informal caregivers towards ambient assisted living applications. J Ambient Intell Human Comput. 2019;10(2):761–778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolkowska E, Avatare NA, Sjolinder M, et al. Socio-technical challenges in implementation of monitoring technologies in elderly care. In: Zhou J, Salvendy G, editors. Human aspects of it for the aged population: Healthy and active aging, ITAP 2016, Pt II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 9755. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016. P. 45–56.
   Google Scholar
• Melkas H. Innovative assistive technology in Finnish public elderly-care services: a focus on productivity. Work. 2013;46(1):77–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nakrem S, Solbjor M, Nilstad Pettersen I, et al. Care relationships at stake? Home healthcare professionals’ experiences with digital medicine dispensers – a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Niemeijer AR, Depla M, Frederiks B, et al. CE: Original research: the use of surveillance technology in residential facilities for people with dementia or intellectual disabilities: a study among nurses and support staff. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(12):28–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okonji PE, Ogwezzy DC. Awareness and barriers to adoption of assistive technologies among visually impaired people in Nigeria. Assist Technol. 2019;31(4):209–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson A, Engström M, Lampic C, et al. A passive positioning alarm used by persons with dementia and their spouses-a qualitative intervention study. BMC Geriatr. 2013;13:11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson A, Skovdahl K, Engström M. Using diffusion of innovation theory to describe perceptions of a passive positioning alarm among persons with mild dementia: a repeated interview study biology and technology. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, et al. Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology. 2016;62(2):226–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Vrijhoef HJM, et al. Origins and consequences of technology acquirement by independent-living seniors: towards an integrative model. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):189.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Vrijhoef HJM, et al. Understanding changes and stability in the long-term use of technologies by seniors who are aging in place: a dynamical framework. BMC Geriatr. (1)2019;19:236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peek STM, Wouters EJM, Luijkx KG, et al. What it takes to successfully implement technology for aging in place: focus groups with stakeholders. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(5):e98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey A, Lord S, Torrey J, et al. Paving the way to successful implementation: identifying key barriers to use of technology-based therapeutic tools for otorized health care. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2016;43(1):54–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeder B, Chung J, Lyden K, et al. Older women’s perceptions of wearable and smart home activity sensors. Inform Health Soc Care. 2020;45(1):96–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riikonen M, Paavilainen E, Salo H. Factors supporting the use of technology in daily life of home-living people with dementia. TAD. 2013;25(4):233–243.
   Google Scholar
• Van Heek J, Himmel S, Ziefle M. Editors. Helpful but spooky? Acceptance of AAL-systems contrasting user groups with focus on disabilities and care needs. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health (ICT4AWE 2017). Setúbal (Portugal): SCITEPRESS; 2017. P. 78–90.
   Google Scholar
• van Hoof J, Kort HSM, Rutten PGS, et al. Ageing-in-place with the use of ambient intelligence technology: perspectives of older users. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(5):310–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang S, Bolling K, Mao W, et al. Technology to support aging in place: older adults’ perspectives. Healthcare. 2019;7(2):60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wangmo T, Lipps M, Kressig RW, et al. Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(1):98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu YH, Damnée S, Kerhervé H, et al. Bridging the digital divide in older adults: a study from an initiative to inform older adults about new technologies. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:193–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283:112461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, et al. Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, et al. The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Milbank Q. 2010;88(4):500–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo C, Waldahl RH, Antonsen Y. Tverrfaglig, sammenkoblet og allestedsnaervaerende–om implementering av velferdsteknologi I kommunale helse-og omsorgstjenester. Nordisk älfärdsforskning [Nordic Welfare Res]. 2019;4(1):9–19.
   Google Scholar