ReviewPLOS digital health2026
Acceptance and impact of Technology-Enabled Care (TEC) among community-dwelling older adults: A rapid review.
Review in PLOS digital health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technology-Enabled Care (TEC) represents a broad approach to supporting older adults' quality of life, ageing in place, and independent living using digital, assistive, monitoring and communication technologies. This review aimed to synthesise existing evidence on factors influencing TEC acceptability and impact among community-dwelling older adults. We employed a rapid review methodology guided by the PCC framework (Population: community-dwelling older adults 55 years and above and carers; Concept: TEC acceptability and impact; Context: community or home). Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched, yielding 7,550 records, of which 41 primary studies were included. Most studies were conducted in Europe (49%), used qualitative methods (51%), and focussed on surveillance and safety technologies (n = 16). Factors influencing TEC acceptability were synthesised into five domains: (1) individual characteristics and readiness, (2) perceived values and trade-offs, (3) sociocultural and relational dynamics, (4) contextual and structural enablers, and (5) technology design and appropriateness. A cross-cutting interpretive analysis identified four mediating mechanisms shaping TEC acceptance: trust, the tension between intrusiveness and autonomy, stigma and identity, and perceived control. Reported impacts of TEC included enhanced safety and independence, improved communication and social connection, health promotion and prevention of adverse events, and increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness of care. Overall, TEC acceptability is shaped by dynamic interactions between individual, social and contextual factors across the life course. Maximising its impact requires a human-centred, participatory approach that recognises heterogeneity among older adults and actively involves users and caregivers throughout the design and implementation process. OSF registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2ENZ7.
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.