SCALS: A fourth-generation study of assisted living technologies in their organisational, social, political and policy context

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Greenhalgh, Trisha ^a   Shaw, Sara ^a   Wherton, Joe ^b   Hughes, Gemma ^a   Lynch, Jenni ^c   A'Court, Christine ^a   Hinder, Sue ^b   Fahy, Nick ^a   Byrne, Emma ^b   Finlayson, Alexander ^a   Sorell, Tom ^c   Procter, Rob ^c   Stones, Rob ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY; ETHNOGRAPHY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INDEPENDENT LIVING; INTERVIEW; ORGANIZATION; RESEARCH ETHICS; SOCIAL CARE; THEORETICAL MODEL; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLICY; POLITICS; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIAL SUPPORT; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM;

ANTHROPOLOGY, CULTURAL; HUMANS; INDEPENDENT LIVING; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; POLICY; POLITICS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SOCIAL SUPPORT; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84960454380     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010208     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Weiser M. The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 1991;265:94-104.
2. Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J, et al. The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis. BMJ Open 2012;2: pii: e001574.
3. Goodwin N. The state of telehealth and telecare in the UK: prospects for integrated care. J Integr Care 2010;18:3-10.
4. Turner KJ, McGee-Lennon MR. Advances in telecare over the past 10 years. Smart Homecare Technol Telehealth 2013;1:21-4.
5. Brandt Å, Samuelsson K, Töytäri O, et al. Activity and participation, quality of life and user satisfaction outcomes of environmental control systems and smart home technology: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:189-206.
6. Cruz J, Brooks D, Marques A. Home telemonitoring effectiveness in COPD: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract 2014;68:369-78.
7. Demiris G, Hensel BK. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of "smart home" applications. Yearb Med Inform 2008:33-40.
8. Ding D, Cooper RA, Pasquina PF, et al. Sensor technology for smart homes. Maturitas 2011;69:131-6.
9. Kang HG, Mahoney DF, Hoenig H, et al. In situ monitoring of health in older adults: technologies and issues. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58:1579-86.
10. Memon M, Wagner SR, Pedersen CF, et al. Ambient assisted living healthcare frameworks, platforms, standards, and quality attributes. Sensors (Basel) 2014;14:4312-41.
11. Gibson G, Newton L, Pritchard G, et al. The provision of assistive technology products and services for people with dementia in the United Kingdom. Dementia (London) 2014; doi:10.1177/1471301214532643
12. Ward G, Holliday N, Fielden S, et al. Fall detectors: a review of the literature. J Assist Technol 2012;6:202-15.
13. Barrett D, Thorpe J, Goodwin N. Examining perspectives on telecare: factors influencing adoption, implementation, and usage. Smart Homecare Technol TeleHealth 2015;3.
14. McLean S, Sheikh A, Cresswell K, et al. The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: a systematic overview. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e71238.
15. Department of Health. A concordat between the Department of Health and the telehealth/telecare industry. London: Department of Health, 2012. http://www.3millionlives.co.uk/pdf/Concordat-FINAL.pdf
16. Sun H, De Florio V, Gui N, et al. Promises and challenges of Ambient assisted living systems. Information Tech, 2011:27-9. April 2009:1201-07.
17. Steventon A, Bardsley M, Billings J, et al. Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMJ 2012;344:e3874.
18. Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernández JL, et al. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013;346:f1035.
19. Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernández JL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telecare for people with social care needs: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age Ageing 2014;43:794-800.
20. López Gómez D. Little arrangements that matter. Rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:91-101.
21. Mort M, Roberts C, Pols J, et al. Ethical implications of home telecare for older people: a framework derived from a multisited participative study. Health Expectations, 2013.
22. Pols J. Care at a distance: on the closeness of technology. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012.
23. Brittain K, Corner L, Robinson L, et al. Ageing in place and technologies of place: the lived experience of people with dementia in changing social, physical and technological environments. Sociol Health Illn 2010;32:272-87.
24. Hargreaves S. A mixed methods exploration of the relationship between activities within the home and health in older people with heart failure: implications for lifestyle monitoring. University of Sheffield, 2014.
25. Oudshoorn N. How places matter: telecare technologies and the changing spatial dimensions of healthcare. Soc Stud Sci 2012;42:121-42.
26. Aceros JC, Pols J, Domènech M. Where is grandma? Home telecare, good aging and the domestication of later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:102-11.
27. Eccles A. Telecare technologies and isolation: some ethical issues. Smart Homecare Technology & TeleHealth, 2015:3.
28. Gregory J. Sorcerer's apprentice: creating the electronic health record, re-inventing medical records and patient care. San Diego: University of California, 2000.
29. Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000360.
30. Robey D, Boudreau MC. Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: theoretical directions and methodological implications. Inf Syst Res 1999;10:167-85.
31. Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch T, et al. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT press, 2012.
32. Barley SR. Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Adm Sci Q 1986;31:78-108.
33. Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Procter R, et al. Co-production in practice: how people with assisted living needs can help design and evolve technologies and services. Implement Sci 2015;10:75.
34. Mingers J, Mutch A, Willcocks L. Critical realism in information systems research. MIS Q 2013;37:795-802.
35. Hanseth O, Aanestad M, Berg M. Actor-network theory and information systems. What's so special? Info Technol People 2004;17:116-23.
36. Orlikowski WJ. Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ Sci 2000;11:404-28.
37. Peine A, Faulkner A, Jæger B, et al. Science, technology and the 'grand challenge'of ageing-Understanding the socio-material constitution of later life. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:1-9.
38. Lupton D. Critical perspectives on digital health technologies. Soc Compass 2014;8:1344-59.
39. Tinker A, Learning H, Network I. Assisted living platform: the long term care revolution. King's College London, 2013.
40. Petersson J. Technospatialities and telehealthcare: unfolding new spaces of visibility. Information, Communication & Society, 2015 (ahead-of-print):1-19.
41. Cheverst K, Clarke K, Dewsbury G, et al. Design with care: technology, disability and the home. Inside the smart home. Springer, 2003:163-79.
42. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology 2009;43:535-54.
43. Nicolini D. Practice as the site of knowing: insights from the field of telemedicine. Organ Sci 2011;22:602-20.
44. Maniatopoulos G, Procter R, Llewellyn S, et al. Moving beyond local practice: reconfiguring the adoption of a breast cancer diagnostic technology. Soc Sci Med 2015;131:98-106.
45. Hollnagel E, Braithwaite J, Wears RL. Resilient health care. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013.
46. Voß A, Procter R, Slack R, et al. Understanding and supporting dependability as ordinary action. Trust in technology: a socio-technical perspective. Springer, 2006:195-216.
47. Greenhalgh T, Stones R. Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Soc Sci Med 2010;70:1285-94.
48. Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J, et al. What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;13:91.
49. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, et al. What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc Sci Med 2013;93:86-94.
50. Procter R, Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, et al. The ATHENE Project: The importance of bricolage in personalising assisted living technologies. Int J Integrated Care 2013;13:1-2.
51. Procter R, Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, et al. The day-to-day co-production of ageing in place. Comput Support Coop Work 2014;23:245-67.
52. Procter R, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, et al. Master class: co-producing assisted living technologies and services. ECSCW 2013 Adjunct Proceedings; 2013.
53. Sugarhood P, Wherton J, Procter R, et al. Technology as system innovation: a key informant interview study of the application of the diffusion of innovation model to telecare. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013:79-87.
54. Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Procter R, et al. Designing technologies for social connection with older people. In: Prendergast DK, Garattini C, eds. Aging and the digital life course. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2015.
55. Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Procter R, et al. Designing assisted living technologies 'in the wild': preliminary experiences with cultural probe methodology. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012;12:188.
56. Lynch J. Policy aspirations and practice in English telecare: a case study of story-lines and invisible work. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, 2015.
57. Greenhalgh T, Swinglehurst D. Studying technology use as social practice: the untapped potential of ethnography. BMC Med 2011;9:45.
58. Waterman H, Tillen D, Dickson R, et al. Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. Health Technol Assess 2000;5:iii-157.
59. Bate P, Robert G. Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: the concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. Radcliffe Publishing, 2007.
60. Neven L. By any means? Questioning the link between gerontechnological innovation and older people's wish to live at home. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:32-43.
61. Östlund B, Olander E, Jonsson O, et al. STS-inspired design to meet the challenges of modern aging. Welfare technology as a tool to promote user driven innovations or another way to keep older users hostage? Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:82-90.
62. Compagna D, Kohlbacher F. The limits of participatory technology development: the case of service robots in care facilities for older people. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:19-31.
63. Lassen AJ, Bønnelycke J, Otto L. Innovating for 'active ageing' in a public-private innovation partnership: creating doable problems and alignment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:10-18.
64. Saborowski M, Kollak I. "How do you care for technology?"-Care professionals' experiences with assistive technology in care of the elderly. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:133-40.
65. Pritchard GW, Brittain K. Alarm pendants and the technological shaping of older people's care: between (intentional) help and (irrational) nuisance. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:124-32.
66. Suopajärvi T. Past experiences, current practices and future design: ethnographic study of aging adults' everyday ICT practices- and how it could benefit public ubiquitous computing design. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:112-23.
67. Gibson G, Dickinson C, Brittain K, et al. The everyday use of assistive technology by people with dementia and their family carers: a qualitative study. BMC Geriatr 2015;15:89.
68. Dourish P, Bell G. Divining a digital future: mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.
69. Hinder S, Greenhalgh T. "This does my head in. " Ethnographic study of self-management by people with diabetes. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:83.
70. Greenhalgh T, Swinglehurst D, Stones R. Rethinking 'resistance' to big IT: a sociological study of why and when healthcare staff do not use nationally mandated information and communication technologies. Health Serv Deliv Res 2014;39:1-86.
71. Sorell T, Draper H. Telecare, surveillance, and the welfare state. Am J Bioeth 2012;12:36-44.
72. Stones R. Structuration theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2005.
73. Greenhalgh T, Stones R, Swinglehurst D. Choose and Book: a sociological analysis of 'resistance' to an expert system. Soc Sci Med 2014;104:210-19.
74. Russell J, Greenhalgh T. Being 'rational' and being 'human': how National Health Service rationing decisions are constructed as rational by resource allocation panels. Health (London) 2014;18:441-57.
75. Greenhalgh T, MacFarlane F, Barton-Sweeney C, et al. "If we build it, will it stay?" A case study of the sustainability of whole-system change in London. Milbank Q 2012;90:516-47.
76. Shaw SE, Smith JA, Porter A, et al. The work of commissioning: a multisite case study of healthcare commissioning in England's NHS. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003341.
77. Porter A, Mays N, Shaw SE, et al. Commissioning healthcare for people with long term conditions: the persistence of relational contracting in England's NHS quasi-market. BMC Health Serv Res 2013;13(Suppl 1):S2.
78. Loe M. Comfort and medical ambivalence in old age. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015;93:141-6.
79. Barlow J, Curry R. Assisted living roadmapping exercise. London: Technology Strategy Board, 2007.
80. Smith NR, Clark C, Fahy AE, et al. The Olympic Regeneration in East London (ORiEL) study: protocol for a prospective controlled quasi-experiment to evaluate the impact of urban regeneration on young people and their families. BMJ Open 2012;2: pii: e001840.
81. Shaw S. Ethnography, language and healthcare planning. In: Copland F, Creese A, Shaw S, et al., eds. Ethnography in the social sciences: collecting, analysing and presenting data. London: Sage, 2015.
82. Stake R. The art of case study research. London: Sage, 1995.
83. Tsoukas H. Craving for generality and small-n studies: a Wittgensteinian approach towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage, 2009.
84. Weick KE. The generative properties of richness. Acad Manage J 2007;50:14-19.
85. Stake R. Standards based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2004.
86. Sayer A. Why things matter to people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
87. Gawande A. Being mortal: medicine and what matters in the end. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014.
88. Kok MO, Schuit AJ. Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact. Health Res Policy Syst 2012;10:21.
89. Spaapen J, Van Drooge L. Introducing 'productive interactions' in social impact assessment. Res Eval 2011;20:211-18.
90. Jagosh J, MacAulay AC, Pluye P, et al. Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice. Milbank Q 2012;90:311-46.
91. Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, et al. Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q 2012;90:421-56.
92. Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 2006;12:219-45.
93. Raymond E. The Cathedral and the Bazaar (online open source publication). http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/(accessed 9 Feb. 2016).