Skip to main content

Table 2 Barriers and promotors, qualitative and mixed methods literature, N = 23

From: Promotors and barriers to the implementation and adoption of assistive technology and telecare for people with dementia and their caregivers: a systematic review of the literature

Author, country, year

n

Design

Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)

Assistive Technology

Barriers

Promotors

Arntzen, C., et al., Norway, 2016 [35]

12

Phenomenological study

Moderate (60%)

Various ATT

Habitual practices

Negative emotions

Poor design

Not adaptable

Not engaging the carer

Complexity of ATT

Fit with habitual behaviors

Culture

Trust

user-friendly

Adaptability

Arthanat, S., et al., USA, 2020 [36]

8

Focus group interviews

Low (40%)

Socially assistive robot (SAR)

Technology anxiety

Effort expectancy

Structure and design of the home

Value and worth

Digital Divide

System failures

Dual burden

Trust (fidelity)

Personalized training

Adaptability (tailoring)

Engaging the care recipient

Humanoid features

Egan, K. J. And A. M. Pot, USA, Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, 2016 [37]

66

Qualitative,

Focus group interviews

High (80%)

Varied ATT

Stigma

Poor accessibility

Not accounting for disease progression

Raise awareness

Affordability

Integrate with existing services

Increase collaborative approaches including the PwD

Evans et al., UK, 2017 [38]

48

Mixed methods (qualitative, self-administered questionnaires)

Moderate (71%)

Ipads - games, memoirs, video conference

Benefits and Barriers:

Ease of use

Convenience and Flexibility

Portability

Cost

N/A

Faeo, S.E. et al., Norway, 2020 [39]

12

Qualitative, exploratory

Moderate (70%)

Various ATT

Safety with side-effects (unintended consequences)

unmet expectations for volunteerism

diversity of care and services

A way to broaden PwD everyday environment

Ability to have more freedom - walking, out from house

Maintained dignity

Fange, A.M., Norway, 2020 [40]

9

21

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews

High (90%)

Sensors

Not having a clear understand of the benefits of ATT

Unreliable technology

Not fitting into habits

Lack of control over an installed device

Ethical issues - privacy

Safety for the PwD

ATT as a support to make life easier

Complemented established care

Gibson, et al., UK, 2015 [41]

13

26

Qualitative,

Semi-strctured interviews

High (90%)

DIY ATT, off the shelf solutions

Too little too late from formal care (ATT)

Cost

Role of the caregiver as facilitator

Easily integrated with current habits/routines

Gibson, et al., UK, 2018 [42]

13

26

Semi-structured interviews

High (80%)

DIY ATT, off the shelf solutions

Inaccessibility

Cost

No information about technology for PwD

“Crisis model” of implementation

Ability to incorporate into habitual practices

Informal caregivers as facilitators and bricoleur

Off-the-shelf solutions (accessibility and cost)

Hall A. et al., UK, 2017 [43]

36

Multiple-case study with qualitative methods

Moderate (70%)

Sensors, Memory aides

Key stakeholders not involved in implementation process

Limited understanding from stakeholders regarding benefits and challenges of ATT

Enhanced safety

Personalized training for staff & caregivers

Heuvel et al., UK, 2012 [44]

25

Qualitative,

Focus group interviews

High (90%)

Various ATT

Lack of information

unknown benefits of use

N/A

Holthe, T. et al., Norway, 2020 [45]

24

Qualitative,

Focus group interviews

High (100%)

Various ATT

Unsystematic approaches

Contested responsibility

Citizen capabilities

Knowledge and training

User friendliness

Holthe, T. et al., Norway, 2018 [46]

13

Qualitative, repeated semi-structured interviews

High (100%)

Various ATT

Waiting times

Lack of information from public services

Untimely information about ATT

Simply designed ATT

Committed caregiver

Need based provision

Incorporation into habitual routines

Ienca et al., Switzerland Germany Italy, 2018 [47]

17

Open-ended qualitative interviews

High (90%)

Various ATT

Mismatch between patients’ needs and ATT

Technical limitations

Translational problems

See barriers

Kerssens et al., USA, 2015 [48]

7

Feasability study

Moderate (70%)

The Companion - touch screen with Psychosocial interacts for PwD

Not offering a feature counted on

Caregivers ignoring or muting shows

Recipients ignoring interventions

Not having enough time

Unwillingness to share experiences

Unmet expectation

Relaxation

Enjoyment of life

Reminisce

Lindqvist et al., Sweden, 2013 [49]

17

Qualitative, semi- structured interviews

High (90%)

Various ATT

N/A

Trust for the ATT

Perceived capacity for use

Fitting into routines

Pre-planning for a decision on which ATT was most appropriate

Lindqvist et al., Sweden, 2015 [50]

14

14

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews

High (90%)

Various - based on interviews with PwD and caregivers

Out of sight-out of mind

Non-relevant info

Professionals needed for updating features

Small buttons

Settings easily manipulated by mistake

No instructions or feedback

Visibility of the ATT

Visualized reminders

Customizable features (user)

Reminders delivered to mobile phone

Personalized buttons

Feedback and guidance on display

Mehrabian et al., France, 2015 [51]

92

Mixed methods (semi-structured interviews, self-administered questionnaires)

Moderate (53%)

Various ATT

Complexity

Expectation vs. reality

Perceptions of need by the caregiver

Technology anxiety

Costs

Limited access to internet in the homes

Security and safety for the user

Assisting in case of emergency

Enable cognitive stimulation

Reminders for meds

Improvement in day-to-day living

Niemeijer, A. R. et al., Netherlands, 2014 [52]

43

28

Qualitative, ethnographic field study

High (90%)

Surveillance technology

False alarms

Alarm fatigue

Not using the technology to full potential

Forgetting to take devices off

Perception of staff

Vision of safe autonomy

Informing of participants (risks and benefits)

Instructions and training of staff

Willingness to use new technology

Pino et al., France, 2015 [53]

25

7

Mixed method, (focus group interviews, self-administered questionnaires)

Low (41%)

SARs

Negative impact on autonomy

Size of SAR

Privacy concerns

Fear of robots replacing humans/jobs

Suitability for level of dementia

Negative attitudes

Generational gap

Perceived usefulness

Fear of the future

Cognitive support

Communication and companionship

Safety and healthcare use

Supports independent living

Alleviates caregiver stress

Snyder et al., USA, 2020 [54]

4

Qualitative, phenomenological study

High (90%)

Remote monitoring technology

Lack of technical ability

Perception of technology as confusing or unclear

Ease of use

Not tailored to needs

Lack of knowledge of benefits of use

Ethical issues

Caregiver peace of mind

better communication with pwd

caregiver confidence

caregiver and care recipient independence

Steils et al., UK, 2021 [55]

114

Mixed methods,

(semi-structured interviews, case studies, self-administered questionnaires)

High (88%)

Various ATT

Lack of information

unknown benefits of use

carers level of knowledge of technology

Tailored solutions

Involvment of carers

Thorpe et al., Denmark, 2016 [56]

10

Feasibility study

High (80%)

Sony smartwatch 3 and Sony Xperia E4

Navigation and emergency support

Scheduling features

Familiar design

Personalization

Yaddadin et al., Canada, 2020 [57]

24

Qualitative, focus group interviews

Moderate (50%)

Various ATT

Complexity of ATT

Difficulty adapting

Requires a large number of resources (time and costs)

Resistance to the use of a technological aid

Learning potential

Interdisciplinary collaboration (including the family)

Experience

Varied features of COOK

  1. Table legend: number of studies, number of participants included in the study, N/A not applicable