Implementation of New Technologies in an Aged Care Social Day Program: Mixed Methods Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Australia's aging population is looking to age in place, accessing care alternatives external to the traditional model of residential aged care facilities. This evaluation is situated in a Social Day Program, delivered by an aged care organization. It is designed to cater for people living with dementia, located in an environment equipped with new technologies including age-specific interactive computer gaming, social robots, sensory stimulation, and virtual reality. The technologies are designed to support older adults, enabling them to stay connected and maintain physical and cognitive functioning, independence, and quality of life. Objective: This project aimed to undertake a multifaceted evaluation of the implementation of the new technologies, including an exploration of the barriers and enablers to uptake. The key issue is how to enhance the potential for optimizing the use of these technologies in the Social Day Program environment, to help inform decision-making regarding the implementation of these technologies at the organization's other sites, and future investment in such technologies by aged care organizations generally. Methods: Observation of technology use within the organization was conducted over a 16-week period. Surveys and semistructured interviews were used to collect information from staff related to their experiences with the technology. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Data were triangulated across the sample. Results: Forty-eight observation periods were completed, totaling 126.5 observation hours. Technology use by clients was observed on 24 occasions, for 22 (17.4% of the observation time) hours. Nineteen staff completed surveys. Nearly three-quarters (n=14) of the staff perceived there to be barriers to the clients' use of technology, and 18 (95%) staff reported that they assisted clients to use the technology. Ten (53%) staff reported receiving training to use the technology and feeling confident in their knowledge of the technology to assist clients in using it. Twelve staff members participated in an interview. Key themes identified from the interview data were: technology has potential but is not for everyone, incorporating the subtheme technology as a placation tool, staff knowledge and confidence, and technology functionality and support. Conclusions: This evaluation identified that technology was not being used for the purposes of enrichment or experience enhancement, nor extensively. Multiple barriers to the implementation and sustained use of the technology items were identified. Recommendations to improve implementation and promote sustained use of technology, based on the findings of this evaluation and evidence from the literature, may apply to other organizations seeking to implement these technologies in similar programs.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».