MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414229670 · doi:10.2196/73917

Patient and Carer-Related Facilitators and Barriers to the Adoption of Assistive Technologies for the Care of Older Adults: Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4414229670 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Malden, Kris McGill, Bruce Guthrie, Helen Frost, Susan D. Shenkin, Adanna Ezike, Bethany Kate Bareham, Stewart W Mercer, Caroline Pearce, Cara Wilson, Ian Underwood, John Vines, Amy O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careQualitative researchMEDLINETelecareAssistive technologyTelemedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Assistive technologies (ATs) are used increasingly in community settings to assist in the care of older adults. Despite a rapid increase in the capabilities and uptake of these technologies, gaps remain in understanding the main barriers to their usage. Objective: This systematic review investigated the barriers and facilitators to the use of AT in the care of older adults. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched from January 2011 to March 2024. Primary studies were included if they used qualitative methods reporting findings related to barriers or facilitators to the implementation of AT (eg, ambient and wearable sensors, alarms, telehealth or mobile health [mHealth]) for older adults (from the perspective of either carers or older adults) in community settings. All data were screened independently by two reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). Data from each included study were synthesized using thematic synthesis, before barriers were mapped against the domains of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Results: Ninety-five studies were included in the review. The number of studies published in the field of barriers to AT use has increased 3-fold post-COVID-19 in comparison to the previous decade. Ten barriers-privacy, cost, insufficient knowledge, fear of misuse, usability, poor functionality, perceived lack of need, stigma, and lack of human interaction-were identified, as well as three facilitators-awareness of health benefits, targeted training, and user-centered design. Persistent barriers relating to all domains of the TAM were identified, with the majority of these relating to the "behavioral intention to use" domain (cost, privacy, stigma, and fear of misuse). The majority of studies had a moderate/high risk of bias. Conclusions: There remain distinct barriers to sustained usage of AT for the care of older adults, particularly concerning adoption as defined by the TAM. Further studies investigating the acceptability of ATs are needed to increase the understanding of optimization strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207