Purpose: Although studies addressing barriers to and facilitators of implementation of welfare technology have been published, no systematic review synthesising evidence on such factors has been found. The purpose of this study was therefore to identify and synthesise existing primary research on facilitators and barriers that influence the implementation of welfare technology for older people, people with disabilities and informal caregivers. Materials and methods: A systematic search in 11 databases was performed using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify empirical studies that assess the implementation of welfare technology for older people, people with disabilities or informal caregivers. The search identified 33 publications with quantitative, qualitative and mixed method designs. The reported findings were thematically synthesised and conceptualised into themes. Results: Six themes of facilitators and barriers that influence the implementation of welfare technology emerged: capacity, attitudes and values, health, expectations, participation and identity and lifestyle. These were presented from five perspectives: older persons and persons with disabilities, informal caregivers, health and care personnel, organisation and infrastructure and technology. The findings may be used as a means to structure the planning and evaluation of implementation processes of welfare technologies for older persons and persons with disabilities and to understand the complexities of implementation. Conclusions: This knowledge generates deepened insights and structures to guide and evaluate the implementation processes of welfare technologies and engenders an understanding of the complexities of implementation. ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONWhen planning for the implementation of welfare technology for older people and persons with disabilities, it is important to consider capacity, attitudes and values, health, expectations, participation, and identity and lifestyle. Using the result from the study facilitates deepened insights and structures for evaluation of implementation processes of welfare technologies and brings an understanding of the complexities of implementation. Welfare technology should be available, safe, usable and fit the user's daily lives. Implementable welfare technology should focus on needs, but also consider design and possible experienced stigma related to the identity of being a welfare technology user.

Background GPS alarms aim to support users in independent activities. Previous systematic reviews have reported a lack of clear evidence of the effectiveness of GPS alarms for the health and welfare of users and their families and for social care provision. As GPS devices are currently being implemented in social care, it is important to investigate whether the evidence of their clinical effectiveness remains insufficient. Standardized evidence frameworks have been developed to ensure that new technologies are clinically effective and offer economic value. The frameworks for analyzing existing evidence of the clinical effectiveness of GPS devices can be used to identify the risks associated with their implementation and demonstrate key aspects of successful piloting or implementation. Objective The principal aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date systematic review of evidence based on existing studies of the effects of GPS alarms on health, welfare, and social provision in the care of older adults compared with non–GPS-based standard care. In addition, the study findings were assessed by using the evidence standards framework for digital health technologies (DHTs) established by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom. Methods This review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Primary studies published in peer-reviewed journals and gray literature from January 2005 to August 2020 were identified through searches in 13 databases and several sources of gray literature. Included studies had individuals (aged ≥50 years) who were receiving social care for older adults or for persons with dementia; used GPS devices as an intervention; were performed in Canada, the United States, European Union, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, South Korea, or Japan; and addressed quantitative outcomes related to health, welfare, and social care. The study findings were analyzed by using the NICE framework requirements for active monitoring DHTs. Results Of the screened records, 1.6% (16/986) were included. Following the standards of the NICE framework, practice evidence was identified for the tier 1 categories Relevance to current pathways in health/social care system and Acceptability with users, and minimum evidence was identified for the tier 1 category Credibility with health, social care professionals. However, several evidence categories for tiers 1 and 2 could not be assessed, and no clear evidence demonstrating effectiveness could be identified. Thus, the evidence required for using DHTs to track patient location according to the NICE framework was insufficient. Conclusions Evidence of the beneficial effects of GPS alarms on the health and welfare of older adults and social care provision remains insufficient. This review illustrated the application of the NICE framework in analyses of evidence, demonstrated successful piloting and acceptability with users of GPS devices, and identified implications for future research.

Background Health and welfare technologies (HWT) are becoming increasingly employed in the Nordic countries, and in Sweden in particular. The amount of HWT public procurement is likely increasing at a similar rate, but requirements for evidence for effectiveness placed on bidders during this process may be lacking. Method This study investigated the use of evidence as a requirement in public sector tendering process of HWT, and how it affected bidder attributes and procurement outcomes. A novel type of systematic review and content analysis of requests for tenders for HWT announced prior to June 2021 was therefore conducted in Swedish public procurement databases. Result Ninety requests for tenders for 11 types of HWT met the inclusion criteria for review, accounting for potential contracts worth 246 to 296 million EUR. Criteria requiring evidence for effectiveness were used in 16 requests for tenders, accounting for 183 million EUR in potential contracts. Eight of the requests referred to an established independent standard to confirm such evidence, such as CE standard of conformity, MDR and/or MDD. This prevalence appears to cut across all types of procuring organisations and all types of HWT. The use of any evidence criteria, or lack thereof, does not appear to affect the outcomes of the tendering process. Conclusion Criteria requiring evidence for effectiveness are used in less than a fifth of all public procurements of health- and welfare technologies in Sweden, and less than 10% refer to some form of independent standard as confirmation of such evidence. The procurement process therefore risks creating a legacy of sub-optimal technologies in health- and social care services. More prevalent and specific requirements for evidence and its continual generation in the procurement process are highly recommended. Recommendations for decision makers, procurement managers, and developers are provided.

Background Nocturnal digital surveillance technologies are being widely implemented as interventions for remotely monitoring elderly populations, and often replace person-based surveillance. Such interventions are often placed in care institutions or in the home, and monitored by qualified personnel or relatives, enabling more rapid and/or frequent assessment of the individual’s need for assistance than through on-location visits. This systematic review summarized the effects of these surveillance technologies on health, welfare and social care provision outcomes in populations ≥ 50 years, compared to standard care. Method Primary studies published 2005–2020 that assessed these technologies were identified in 11 databases of peer-reviewed literature and numerous grey literature sources. Initial screening, full-text screening, and citation searching steps yielded the studies included in the review. The Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I tools were used for quality assessment of the included studies. Result Five studies out of 744 identified records met inclusion criteria. Health-related outcomes (e.g. accidents, 2 studies) and social care outcomes (e.g. staff burden, 4 studies) did not differ between interventions and standard care. Quality of life and affect showed improvement (1 study each), as did economic outcomes (1 study). The quality of studies was low however, with all studies possessing a high to critical risk of bias. Conclusions We found little evidence for the benefit of nocturnal digital surveillance interventions as compared to standard care in several key outcomes. Higher quality intervention studies should be prioritized in future research to provide more reliable evidence.

BackgroundThis systematic review summarized the effects of nocturnal digital surveillance technologies on health, welfare and social care provision outcomes in populations ≥ 50 years, compared to standard care.Primary studies published 2005-2020 that assessed these technologies were identified in 11 databases of peer-reviewed literature and numerous grey literature sources. Five publications out of 629 met inclusion criteria. The Risk of Bias 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools were used for quality assessment. ResultHealth-related outcomes (e.g. injuries, unexplained absences) and social care outcomes (e.g. staff burden) did not differ between interventions and standard care. Quality of life and affect showed improvement with some interventions, as did economic outcomes in one setting. The quality of studies was low however, with a serious to critical risk of bias. ConclusionWe found little evidence for the benefit of nocturnal digital surveillance interventions as compared to standard care in several key outcomes. Higher quality intervention studies should be prioritized in future research to provide more reliable evidence.