Implementation of welfare technology: a state-of-the-art review of knowledge gaps and research needs

References

• Welfare technology [Internet]. Nordic Welfare Centre. 2019; [cited 2021 Dec 12]. Available from: https://nordicwelfare.org/en/welfare-policy/welfare-technology/2019.
   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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Zander V, Gustafsson C, Landerdahl Stridsberg S, et al. Implementation of welfare technology: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;2021:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Termbanken. Välfärdsteknik [welfare technology] [Internet]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen. 2015; [cited 2021 Dec 12]. Available from: http://termbank.socialstyrelsen.se/showterm.php?fTid=798.
   Google Scholar
• Frennert S. Approaches to welfare technology in municipal eldercare. J Technol Hum Serv. 2020;38(3):226–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frennert S, Baudin K. The concept of welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;43(9):1220–1227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khasnabis C, Holloway C, MacLachlan M. The digital and assistive technologies for ageing initiative: learning from the GATE initiative. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2020;1(3):e94–e5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• 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; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–340.
   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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, et al. Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontol. 2016;62(2):226–237.
   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
• 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
• 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
• 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); 2017 Apr. Setúbal, Portugal: Scitepress; 2017. p. 78–90.
   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
• Riikonen M, Paavilainen E, Salo H. Factors supporting the use of technology in daily life of home-living people with dementia. Technol Disabil. 2013;25(4):233–243.
   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
• 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
• Kolkowska E, Avatare Nöu A, 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
• 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
• 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 behavioral health care. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2016;43(1):54–70.
   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? Technol Disabil. 2014;26(4):221–235.
   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
• Jon A. Competing concerns in welfare technology innovation: a systematic literature review. 2019. 10th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems. 3.https://aisel.aisnet.org/scis2019/3.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham JA, O’Reilly P. Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer. J Technol Transf. 2018;43(3):545–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Global priority research agenda for improving access to high-quality affordable assistive technology. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
   Google Scholar