Search

In this review we explore the provision of assistive technology products and services currently available for people with dementia within the United Kingdom. A scoping review of assistive technology products and services currently available highlighted 171 products or product types and 331 services. In addition, we assimilated data on the amount and quality of information provided by assistive technology services alongside assistive technology costs. We identify a range of products available across three areas: assistive technology used 'by', 'with' and 'on' people with dementia. Assistive technology provision is dominated by 'telecare' provided by local authorities, with services being subject to major variations in pricing and information provision; few currently used available resources for assistive technology in dementia. We argue that greater attention should be paid to information provision about assistive technology services across an increasingly mixed economy of dementia care providers, including primary care, local authorities, private companies and local/national assistive technology resources., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Objective: To identify implementation lessons from the United Kingdom Delivering Assisted Living Lifestyles at Scale (dallas) program-a large-scale, national technology program that aims to deliver a broad range of digital services and products to the public to promote health and well-being., Materials and Methods: Prospective, longitudinal qualitative research study investigating implementation processes. Qualitative data collected includes semi-structured e-Health Implementation Toolkit-led interviews at baseline/mid-point (n = 38), quarterly evaluation, quarterly technical and barrier and solutions reports, observational logs, quarterly evaluation alignment interviews with project leads, observational data collected during meetings, and ethnographic data from dallas events (n > 200 distinct pieces of qualitative data). Data analysis was guided by Normalization Process Theory, a sociological theory that aids conceptualization of implementation issues in complex healthcare settings., Results: Five key challenges were identified: 1) The challenge of establishing and maintaining large heterogeneous, multi-agency partnerships to deliver new models of healthcare; 2) The need for resilience in the face of barriers and set-backs including the backdrop of continually changing external environments; 3) The inherent tension between embracing innovative co-design and achieving delivery at pace and at scale; 4) The effects of branding and marketing issues in consumer healthcare settings; and 5) The challenge of interoperability and information governance, when commercial proprietary models are dominant., Conclusions: The magnitude and ambition of the dallas program provides a unique opportunity to investigate the macro level implementation challenges faced when designing and delivering digital health and wellness services at scale. Flexibility, adaptability, and resilience are key implementation facilitators when shifting to new digitally enabled models of care., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Background: Although empirical and theoretical understanding of processes of implementation in health care is advancing, translation of theory into structured measures that capture the complex interplay between interventions, individuals and context remain limited. This paper aimed to (1) describe the process and outcome of a project to develop a theory-based instrument for measuring implementation processes relating to e-health interventions; and (2) identify key issues and methodological challenges for advancing work in this field., Methods: A 30-item instrument (Technology Adoption Readiness Scale (TARS)) for measuring normalisation processes in the context of e-health service interventions was developed on the basis on Normalization Process Theory (NPT). NPT focuses on how new practices become routinely embedded within social contexts. The instrument was pre-tested in two health care settings in which e-health (electronic facilitation of healthcare decision-making and practice) was used by health care professionals., Results: The developed instrument was pre-tested in two professional samples (N=46; N=231). Ratings of items representing normalisation 'processes' were significantly related to staff members' perceptions of whether or not e-health had become 'routine'. Key methodological challenges are discussed in relation to: translating multi-component theoretical constructs into simple questions; developing and choosing appropriate outcome measures; conducting multiple-stakeholder assessments; instrument and question framing; and more general issues for instrument development in practice contexts., Conclusions: To develop theory-derived measures of implementation process for progressing research in this field, four key recommendations are made relating to (1) greater attention to underlying theoretical assumptions and extent of translation work required; (2) the need for appropriate but flexible approaches to outcomes measurement; (3) representation of multiple perspectives and collaborative nature of work; and (4) emphasis on generic measurement approaches that can be flexibly tailored to particular contexts of study.

Objective: To systematically review the literature on the implementation of e-health to identify: (i) barriers and facilitators to e-health implementation, and (ii) outstanding gaps in research on the subject., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched for reviews published between 1 January 1995 and 17 March 2009. Studies had to be systematic reviews, narrative reviews, qualitative metasyntheses or meta-ethnographies of e-health implementation. Abstracts and papers were double screened and data were extracted on country of origin; e-health domain; publication date; aims and methods; databases searched; inclusion and exclusion criteria and number of papers included. Data were analysed qualitatively using normalization process theory as an explanatory coding framework., Findings: Inclusion criteria were met by 37 papers; 20 had been published between 1995 and 2007 and 17 between 2008 and 2009. Methodological quality was poor: 19 papers did not specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 13 did not indicate the precise number of articles screened. The use of normalization process theory as a conceptual framework revealed that relatively little attention was paid to: (i) work directed at making sense of e-health systems, specifying their purposes and benefits, establishing their value to users and planning their implementation; (ii) factors promoting or inhibiting engagement and participation; (iii) effects on roles and responsibilities; (iv) risk management, and (v) ways in which implementation processes might be reconfigured by user-produced knowledge., Conclusion: The published literature focused on organizational issues, neglecting the wider social framework that must be considered when introducing new technologies.

Background: Telecare could greatly facilitate chronic disease management in the community, but despite government promotion and positive demonstrations its implementation has been limited. This study aimed to identify factors inhibiting the implementation and integration of telecare systems for chronic disease management in the community., Methods: Large scale comparative study employing qualitative data collection techniques: semi-structured interviews with key informants, task-groups, and workshops; framework analysis of qualitative data informed by Normalization Process Theory. Drawn from telecare services in community and domestic settings in England and Scotland, 221 participants were included, consisting of health professionals and managers; patients and carers; social care professionals and managers; and service suppliers and manufacturers., Results: Key barriers to telecare integration were uncertainties about coherent and sustainable service and business models; lack of coordination across social and primary care boundaries, lack of financial or other incentives to include telecare within primary care services; a lack of a sense of continuity with previous service provision and self-care work undertaken by patients; and general uncertainty about the adequacy of telecare systems. These problems led to poor integration of policy and practice., Conclusion: Telecare services may offer a cost effective and safe form of care for some people living with chronic illness. Slow and uneven implementation and integration do not stem from problems of adoption. They result from incomplete understanding of the role of telecare systems and subsequent adaption and embeddedness to context, and uncertainties about the best way to develop, coordinate, and sustain services that assist with chronic disease management. Interventions are therefore needed that (i) reduce uncertainty about the ownership of implementation processes and that lock together health and social care agencies; and (ii) ensure user centred rather than biomedical/service-centred models of care.

Increasingly policy for long term condition management is focussing on new technologies. Telecare is viewed as a means of making services more responsive, equitable, cost and clinically-effective and able to play a central part in mediating between service users, professionals, and service providers. It has also been identified as helping to establish patient self-management for long term conditions. In this paper we consider the social practices of the work of telecare integration and incorporation for patients, their interactions with professionals and the synergy or otherwise with policy makers' expectations for how patients approach, use and interact with services. The research took place in England and in Wales and involved qualitative interviews with 31 individuals. Our research suggests that, telecare services provide both an adequate substitution for traditional services and additional benefits such as minimising the need to travel and the added reassurance of regular external surveillance. However, the nature of patient work involved is 'low level' rather than requiring higher level interpretation of readings and decision making commensurate with realising a policy vision of more independent and responsible self -managers. Indeed a paradox of the reliance and acceptance of telecare is the creation of new relationships and dependencies rather than the diminution of reliance envisaged by policy. The illumination of practices around telecare provides evidence for policy makers and others to adjust the predictions and presumptions about how telecare might enable and promote more effective long term condition management., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore the importance of ;coherence' in the normalization of treatment interventions by examining teledermatology for skin disease management from the perspectives of patients and their advocates., Methods: Twelve teledermatology services were studied using semi-structured interviews. Participants were patients (n = 20) and health professionals, managers and patient advocates (n = 68)., Results: Teledermatology lacked coherence for patients and advocates. It was seen to be different from standard dermatology care, but the objectives of it -- what it is for -- were neither clear nor understandable to participants. Teledermatology 'fitting in' with the patient's own lifeworld appeared to be unlikely for patients suffering a range of skin diseases, as features of teledermatology (e.g. absence of talk with consultant, and diagnostic uncertainty) were incongruent with the wide-ranging needs of patients and limited their participation in management., Discussion: Healthcare technology may facilitate greater self-management of chronic disease. However, successful normalization of technology for this purpose will require greater understanding of what it means to patients in the context of their experiences of disease and the parameters of their lives.

Increasing use of information and communication technologies is said to be transforming health care. Telehealthcare enables medical consultations to be conducted between patients and health professionals across different locations. Such technologies imply new relationships between patients and health professionals. This study aimed to understand how policy and practice in relation to telehealthcare suggests new conceptualisations of 'the patient'. In-depth semistructured interviews (n = 38) were conducted with key informants from across the UK, known to have involvement or interest in telehealthcare from a variety of perspectives: health professionals (n = 11), patient advocates (n = 7), telemedicine experts (n = 6), policy-makers (n = 4), administrators (n = 4), researchers (n = 3) and technologists (n = 3). Interviews were conducted either in person or over the telephone, and were audio-recorded. Data were analysed thematically with ongoing cross-validation of data interpretation between members of the research team. The results indicated divergent views about the role of the patient, although accounts of patients becoming 'educated self-managers', taking on a more active role in their healthcare, were predominant. Beliefs about the impact of telehealthcare on patients were focused on perceived 'priorities' such as access, location of services, confidentiality and choice; however, there remains little understanding of the trade-offs that patients are willing to make in the context of technologically mediated health care. The results also highlight ideas around how patients relate to technologies; the extent to which technologies might fragment care and medicine in new or unexpected ways, and participation and absence of patients in decision-making about policies and services. The results of this study have important implications for the ways in which relationships between health professionals and patients are managed in practice, and raise important questions for public participation in service development.

'Modernization' is a key health policy objective in the UK. It extends across a range of public service delivery and organizational contexts, and also means there are radical changes in perspective on professional behaviour and practice. New information and communications technologies have been seen as one of the key mechanisms by which these changes can be engendered. In particular, massive investment in information technologies promises the rapid distribution and deployment of patient-centred information across internal organizational boundaries. While the National Health Service (NHS) sits on the edge of a pound sterling 6 billion investment in electronic patient records, other technologies find their status as innovative vehicles for professional behaviour change and service delivery in question. In this paper, we consider the ways that telemedicine and telehealthcare systems have been constructed first as a field of technological innovation, and more recently, as management solutions to problems around the distribution of health care. We use NHS responses to chronic illness as a medium for understanding these shifts. In particular, we draw attention to the shifting definitions of 'innovation' and to the ways that these shifts define a move away from notions of technological advance towards management control.

We conducted a qualitative study in the UK to examine perspectives about telemedicine, telecare and e-health for the changing roles of patients and citizens. We believe there are important differences between these applications, but for simplicity, the term 'telecare' is used broadly here to include all three. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted between September 2002 and May 2004. Participants were 38 key informants from the UK, known to have involvement or interest in telecare: policy-makers, clinicians, technologists, health service managers, researchers and patient advocates. Interviews were conducted either in person or over the telephone, and were audio-recorded with participants' consent. The most frequently cited priorities for patients included accessibility to services, locations of care and quality of care, with some respondents emphasizing the importance of choice for the patient (in terms of appointments and ways of accessing services). However, telecare has implications for patients that go beyond issues of access. A major problem is that 'priorities' are assumed rather than based on an empirical understanding; moreover, for individual patients, preferences for particular forms of service delivery are likely to represent trade-offs between multiple priorities. The findings of the present study confirm that concepts of the patient's rights and responsibilities are changing with the increasing use of new technologies to deliver health care.

Ten delegates at the conference Voluntarism, Health and Social Care were recruited to form a panel of citizens to debate and offer direction for the future of technologically mediated health care. The panel suggested various principles for the development of telemedicine and telecare, concerning: patients, users and carers, approach to service delivery, research and knowledge, and conditions of use. Many of the principles echoed the founding values of the National Health Service, yet have arguably been absent from both policy pronouncements and the telemedicine literature, which largely views new health technologies themselves as 'value free', i.e. developed untouched by social and political relations. A programme of citizens' panels should be developed so that an informed debate can take place about the development of telemedicine and telecare, to underpin policy and practice.

Objectives: To identify issues that facilitate the successful integration of evaluation and development of telehealthcare services., Design: Ethnographic study using various qualitative research techniques to obtain data from several sources, including in-depth semistructured interviews, project steering group meetings, and public telehealthcare meetings., Setting: Seven telehealthcare evaluation projects (four randomised controlled trials and three pragmatic service evaluations) in the United Kingdom, studied over two years. Projects spanned a range of specialties-dermatology, psychiatry, respiratory medicine, cardiology, and oncology., Participants: Clinicians, managers, technical experts, and researchers involved in the projects., Results and Discussion: Key problems in successfully integrating evaluation and service development in telehealthcare are, firstly, defining existing clinical practices (and anticipating changes) in ways that permit measurement; secondly, managing additional workload and conflicting responsibilities brought about by combining clinical and research responsibilities (including managing risk); and, thirdly, understanding various perspectives on effectiveness and the limitations of evaluation results beyond the context of the research study., Conclusions: Combined implementation and evaluation of telehealthcare systems is complex, and is often underestimated. The distinction between quantitative outcomes and the workability of the system is important for producing evaluative knowledge that is of practical value. More pragmatic approaches to evaluation, that permit both quantitative and qualitative methods, are required to improve the quality of such research and its relevance for service provision in the NHS.

Objective: Qualitative studies can help us understand the "successes" and "failures" of telemedicine to normalize within clinical service provision. This report presents the development of a robust conceptual model of normalization processes in the implementation and development of telemedicine services., Design: Retrospective and cumulative analysis of longitudinal qualitative data from three studies was undertaken between 1997 and 2002. Observation and semistructured interviews produced a substantial body of data relating to approximately 582 discrete data collection episodes. Data were analyzed separately in each of three studies. Cumulative analysis was conducted by constant comparison., Results: (1) Implementation of telemedicine services depends on a positive link with a (local or national) policy level sponsor. (2) Adoption of telemedicine systems in service depends on successful structural integration so that development of organizational structures takes place. (3) Translation of telemedicine technologies into clinical practice depends on the enrollment of cohesive, cooperative groups. (4) Stabilization of telemedicine systems in practice depends on integration at the level of professional knowledge and practice, where clinicians are able to accommodate telemedicine through the development of new procedures and protocols., Conclusion: A rationalized linear diffusion model of "telehealthcare" is inadequate in assessing the potential for normalization, and the political, organizational, and "ownership" problems that govern the process of development, implementation, and normalization need to be accounted for. This report presents a model for assessing the potential for successful implementation of telehealthcare services. This model defines the requirements for the successful normalization of telemedicine systems in clinical practice.

Introduction: Excessive alcohol consumption is a leading global risk factor for ill-health and premature death. Digital alcohol interventions can be effective at reducing alcohol consumption, but their widespread adoption is lagging behind. This study aimed to identify factors promoting or inhibiting the implementation of a digital alcohol intervention in Norwegian primary care, by using Normalization Process Theory (NPT). Methods: A mixed methods feasibility study combining quantitative and qualitative methods. A digital alcohol intervention called "Endre" was implemented across four GP practices in Stavanger and Oslo. Usage of the intervention was logged on the digital platform. General practitioners (GPs) reported their perceived uptake of the intervention via a web-based survey. The Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) survey was used to measure support staff's perceived normalization of the intervention. Qualitative data were analyzed using the NPT framework, with quantitative data analyzed descriptively and using χ 2 and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for differences in current and future normalization. Results: Thirty-seven GPs worked in the clinics and could recruit patients for the digital intervention. Thirty-six patients registered for the intervention. Nine patients dropped out early and 25 completed the intervention as intended. Low normalization scores at follow-up (n = 27) indicated that Endre did not become fully embedded in and across practices. Nonetheless, staff felt somewhat confident about their use of Endre and thought it may become a more integral part of their work in the future. Findings from six semi-structured group interviews suggested that limited implementation success may have been due to a lack of tailored implementation support, staff's lack of involvement, their diminished trust in Endre, and a lack of feedback on intervention usage. The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic further limited opportunities for GPs to use Endre. Conclusion: This study investigated the real-world challenges of implementing a digital alcohol intervention in routine clinical practice. Future research should involve support staff in both the development and implementation of digital solutions to maximize compatibility with professional workflows and needs. Integration of digital solutions may further be improved by including features such as dashboards that enable clinicians to access and monitor patient progress and self-reported outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cochlear implants provide hearing to approximately 750,000 people with deafness worldwide; these patients require lifelong follow-up. Care for adults with implants in the United Kingdom occurs at one of 19 centers, which may be far from the patients' homes. In a previous randomized controlled trial, we successfully introduced person-centered care. We designed, implemented, and evaluated the following remote care pathway: a personalized web-based support tool, home hearing check, self-device adjustment, and upgrading of sound processors at home rather than in the clinic. The remote care group had a significant increase in empowerment after using the tools, and the patients and clinicians were keen to continue. We would now like to scale up these improvements as an option for >12,000 UK adults using implants; we are commissioning an independent evaluation of this intervention and rollout to establish if it achieves its aims of more empowered and confident patients; more accessible and equitable care; stable hearing; more efficient, person-centered, and scalable service; and more satisfied and engaged patients and clinicians. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the impact and rollout of a person-centered clinical care pathway via telemedicine for adults with cochlear implants in the United Kingdom, using both outcomes and process evaluation. Methods: This project will scale up and evaluate a person-centered long-term follow-up pathway for adults using cochlear implants through a personalized website, including a home hearing check, uploading photos of cochlear implant site, listening in noise and music practice, ordering of spares, questionnaires, and other resources. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses will be conducted, and they will be both an outcome and process evaluation. Results: As of July 2021, the trial is closed, and all data collection is complete. The evaluation report is expected to be published in December 2021, and the research data have not yet been analyzed. Conclusions: This project will present the results of the first scaling up of a remote care pathway for adults with cochlear implants in the United Kingdom. Trial Registration: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN51668922; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN51668922 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/27207 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Digital health has the potential to support care delivery for chronic illness. Despite positive evidence from localized implementations, new technologies have proven slow to become accepted, integrated, and routinized at scale.Objective: The aim of our study was to examine barriers and facilitators to implementation of digital health at scale through the evaluation of a £37m national digital health program: ‟Delivering Assisted Living Lifestyles at Scale" (dallas) from 2012-2015.Methods: The study was a longitudinal qualitative, multi-stakeholder, implementation study. The methods included interviews (n=125) with key implementers, focus groups with consumers and patients (n=7), project meetings (n=12), field work or observation in the communities (n=16), health professional survey responses (n=48), and cross program documentary evidence on implementation (n=215). We used a sociological theory called normalization process theory (NPT) and a longitudinal (3 years) qualitative framework analysis approach. This work did not study a single intervention or population. Instead, we evaluated the processes (of designing and delivering digital health), and our outcomes were the identified barriers and facilitators to delivering and mainstreaming services and products within the mixed sector digital health ecosystem.Results: We identified three main levels of issues influencing readiness for digital health: macro (market, infrastructure, policy), meso (organizational), and micro (professional or public). Factors hindering implementation included: lack of information technology (IT) infrastructure, uncertainty around information governance, lack of incentives to prioritize interoperability, lack of precedence on accountability within the commercial sector, and a market perceived as difficult to navigate. Factors enabling implementation were: clinical endorsement, champions who promoted digital health, and public and professional willingness.Conclusions: Although there is receptiveness to digital health, barriers to mainstreaming remain. Our findings suggest greater investment in national and local infrastructure, implementation of guidelines for the safe and transparent use and assessment of digital health, incentivization of interoperability, and investment in upskilling of professionals and the public would help support the normalization of digital health. These findings will enable researchers, health care practitioners, and policy makers to understand the current landscape and the actions required in order to prepare the market and accelerate uptake, and use of digital health and wellness services in context and at scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is little published information about the perceptions of risk in the use of telemedicine services. The present study drew on data from two separate research projects. The data comprised interviews with health professionals, technologists, managers and patient advocates involved in telemedicine. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Key themes included the need to balance risks against potential benefits and the suggestion that risk was a method of resisting change. Another theme was trust, both in health professionals and the technology itself. It appears that risk management issues may be an important barrier to the implementation of telemedicine services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]