Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41313153›Full record

SynthesisJMIR aging2025

Patient and Carer-Related Facilitators and Barriers to the Adoption of Assistive Technologies for the Care of Older Adults: Systematic Review.

Stephen Malden, Kris McGill, Bruce Guthrie, Helen Frost, Susan D Shenkin, Adanna Ezike, Bethany Kate Bareham, Stewart W Mercer, Caroline Pearce, Cara Wilson and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Stephen MaldenScottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 44 0131651 ext 3969.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5819-6347
Kris McGillAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0307-1440
Bruce GuthrieAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4191-4880
Helen FrostAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9241-8970
Susan D ShenkinAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7375-4776
Adanna EzikeForth Valley Royal Hospital, NHS Forth Valley, Larbert, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-3701-9650
Bethany Kate BarehamAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9730-8874
Stewart W MercerAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1703-3664
Caroline PearceAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4653-2697
Cara WilsonAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2958-2230
Ian UnderwoodAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7934-2892
John VinesAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4051-3356
Sue LewisAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0951-1873
Amy O'DonnellAdvanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4071-9434

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Assistive technologies (ATs) are used increasingly in community settings to assist in the care of older adults. Despite a rapid increase in the capabilities and uptake of these technologies, gaps remain in understanding the main barriers to their usage. Objective: This systematic review investigated the barriers and facilitators to the use of AT in the care of older adults. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched from January 2011 to March 2024. Primary studies were included if they used qualitative methods reporting findings related to barriers or facilitators to the implementation of AT (eg, ambient and wearable sensors, alarms, telehealth or mobile health [mHealth]) for older adults (from the perspective of either carers or older adults) in community settings. All data were screened independently by two reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). Data from each included study were synthesized using thematic synthesis, before barriers were mapped against the domains of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Results: Ninety-five studies were included in the review. The number of studies published in the field of barriers to AT use has increased 3-fold post-COVID-19 in comparison to the previous decade. Ten barriers-privacy, cost, insufficient knowledge, fear of misuse, usability, poor functionality, perceived lack of need, stigma, and lack of human interaction-were identified, as well as three facilitators-awareness of health benefits, targeted training, and user-centered design. Persistent barriers relating to all domains of the TAM were identified, with the majority of these relating to the "behavioral intention to use" domain (cost, privacy, stigma, and fear of misuse). The majority of studies had a moderate/high risk of bias. Conclusions: There remain distinct barriers to sustained usage of AT for the care of older adults, particularly concerning adoption as defined by the TAM. Further studies investigating the acceptability of ATs are needed to increase the understanding of optimization strategies.

Indexed as

CaregiversCOVID-19Patient Acceptance of Health CareSelf-Help DevicesAgedHumansSARS-CoV-2Telemedicineaging in placeassistive technologybarrierscarefacilitatorsolder adult

Identifiers

PMID41313153
PMCPMC12661617

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.