ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Digital technology for older adults with functional disabilities at home: a scoping review.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder adults with functional disabilities face dual pressures from surging home care demands and a shortage of medical resources. While digital technologies demonstrate crucial potential in home care, the utilization of digital solutions remains substantially low among this group.
objectivesTo explore the application status, supply-demand matching, utilization models, and influencing factors of digital technologies in home-based care for disabled older adults.
methodsThe scoping review followed a five-stage framework and the PRISMA-ScR checklist statement. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus, and ProQuest from inception to January 2026. The quality of the included studies was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018. Data were analyzed using the descriptive inductive thematic analysis. A “Supply-Demand Gap Analysis Matrix” was constructed to evaluate the alignment between services provided and user needs.
resultsIoT and Mobile Systems (18/27) were the dominant technologies, primarily utilizing a “Medic-Led Model” (13/27). A significant supply-demand gap emerged: while Bio-Safety and Medical Support were highly supplied (65.2%), assistance for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) was rare (8.7%) despite universal demand (100%). Regarding outcomes, Feasibility (19/27) was the most frequently assessed domain, whereas Cost Analysis (4/27) was the least reported.
conclusionCurrent research reveals a mismatch: technologies prioritize medical surveillance and feasibility over daily living assistance and cost-effectiveness. Future studies should pivot toward solutions focused on daily living assistance and multidimensional evaluations to better support the independence of older adults with functional disabilities at home.
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.