Factors Affecting the Implementation, Use, and Adoption of Real-Time Location System Technology for Persons Living With Cognitive Disabilities in Long-term Care Homes: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As the aging population continues to grow, the number of adults living with dementia or other cognitive disabilities in residential long-term care homes is expected to increase. Technologies such as real-time locating systems (RTLS) are being investigated for their potential to improve the health and safety of residents and the quality of care and efficiency of long-term care facilities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify factors that affect the implementation, adoption, and use of RTLS for use with persons living with dementia or other cognitive disabilities in long-term care homes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed English language literature indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception up to and including May 5, 2020. Search strategies included keywords and subject headings related to cognitive disability, residential long-term care settings, and RTLS. Study characteristics, methodologies, and data were extracted and analyzed using constant comparative techniques. RESULTS: A total of 12 publications were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in the Netherlands (7/12, 58%) and used a descriptive qualitative study design. We identified 3 themes from our analysis of the studies: barriers to implementation, enablers of implementation, and agency and context. Barriers to implementation included lack of motivation for engagement; technology ecosystem and infrastructure challenges; and myths, stories, and shared understanding. Enablers of implementation included understanding local workflows, policies, and technologies; usability and user-centered design; communication with providers; and establishing policies, frameworks, governance, and evaluation. Agency and context were examined from the perspective of residents, family members, care providers, and the long-term care organizations. CONCLUSIONS: There is a striking lack of evidence to justify the use of RTLS to improve the lives of residents and care providers in long-term care settings. More research related to RTLS use with cognitively impaired residents is required; this research should include longitudinal evaluation of end-to-end implementations that are developed using scientific theory and rigorous analysis of the functionality, efficiency, and effectiveness of these systems. Future research is required on the ethics of monitoring residents using RTLS and its impact on the privacy of residents and health care workers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».