ArticleDigital health
Reflexive case studies on conducting technology implementation research in long-term care homes.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Technological advancements offer the potential to address healthcare challenges, such as improving residents' quality of life in long-term care homes (LTCHs). However, there is often a mismatch between developed technologies and the actual needs of residents and staff, leading to poor adoption. Researchers conducting research on developing and implementing technologies in LTCHs face unique challenges. Understanding these challenges is crucial for enhancing technology adoption and sustainability in LTCHs. Methods: This qualitative reflection study is about the experiences of two technology implementation projects in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada. Researchers from the Telepresence Robot and MouvMat projects participated in four reflection sessions. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we identified themes and gained valuable insight into the experiences, lessons learned, and recommendations. Results: Both projects faced challenges in recruitment, accommodating individual residents' needs and routines, staff shortages and turnover, and logistics barriers due to infrastructural limitations and changing guidelines. The Telepresence Robot and the MouvMat teams implemented a range of adaptive strategies. These included frequent check-ins with families, creating appropriate training materials, co-developing tailored solutions, flexible recruitment approaches, staff engagement tactics, and personalized support. Conclusion: The lessons learned highlighted the need for adaptive strategies in conducting research in LTCHs. The study calls for structural support and partnerships between academics and practice locally, nationally, and internationally, as well as efforts to combat ageism in technology use. Researchers need support for knowledge translation and sharing findings to highlight the value of staff participation and showcase research benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.