What it Takes to Successfully Implement Technology for Aging in Place: Focus Groups With Stakeholders

Sebastiaan Theodorus Michaël Peek, Eveline J M Wouters, Katrien G Luijkx, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef, Sebastiaan Theodorus Michaël Peek, Eveline J M Wouters, Katrien G Luijkx, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef

Abstract

Background: There is a growing interest in empowering older adults to age in place by deploying various types of technology (ie, eHealth, ambient assisted living technology, smart home technology, and gerontechnology). However, initiatives aimed at implementing these technologies are complicated by the fact that multiple stakeholder groups are involved. Goals and motives of stakeholders may not always be transparent or aligned, yet research on convergent and divergent positions of stakeholders is scarce.

Objective: To provide insight into the positions of stakeholder groups involved in the implementation of technology for aging in place by answering the following questions: What kind of technology do stakeholders see as relevant? What do stakeholders aim to achieve by implementing technology? What is needed to achieve successful implementations?

Methods: Mono-disciplinary focus groups were conducted with participants (n=29) representing five groups of stakeholders: older adults (6/29, 21%), care professionals (7/29, 24%), managers within home care or social work organizations (5/29, 17%), technology designers and suppliers (6/29, 21%), and policy makers (5/29, 17%). Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: Stakeholders considered 26 different types of technologies to be relevant for enabling independent living. Only 6 out of 26 (23%) types of technology were mentioned by all stakeholder groups. Care professionals mentioned fewer different types of technology than other groups. All stakeholder groups felt that the implementation of technology for aging in place can be considered a success when (1) older adults' needs and wishes are prioritized during development and deployment of the technology, (2) the technology is accepted by older adults, (3) the technology provides benefits to older adults, and (4) favorable prerequisites for the use of technology by older adults exist. While stakeholders seemed to have identical aims, several underlying differences emerged, for example, with regard to who should pay for the technology. Additionally, each stakeholder group mentioned specific steps that need to be taken to achieve successful implementation. Collectively, stakeholders felt that they need to take the leap (ie, change attitudes, change policies, and collaborate with other organizations); bridge the gap (ie, match technology with individuals and stimulate interdisciplinary education); facilitate technology for the masses (ie, work on products and research that support large-scale rollouts and train target groups on how to use technology); and take time to reflect (ie, evaluate use and outcomes).

Conclusions: Stakeholders largely agree on the direction in which they should be heading; however, they have different perspectives with regard to the technologies that can be employed and the work that is needed to implement them. Central to these issues seems to be the tailoring of technology or technologies to the specific needs of each community-dwelling older adult and the work that is needed by stakeholders to support this type of service delivery on a large scale.

Keywords: aged; eHealth; focus groups; health services for the elderly; implementation management; independent living; project and people management; qualitative research; technology.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. World Population Ageing 2013. New York, NY: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; 2013. [2016-04-14]. .
    1. Vasunilashorn S, Steinman BA, Liebig PS, Pynoos J. Aging in place: Evolution of a research topic whose time has come. J Aging Res. 2012;2012:120952. doi: 10.1155/2012/120952.
    1. Peek STM, Wouters EJM, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJM. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014 Apr;83(4):235–248. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.004.
    1. Michel JP, Franco A. Geriatricians and technology. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Dec;15(12):860–862. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.09.016.
    1. Wilson C, Hargreaves T, Hauxwell-Baldwin R. Smart homes and their users: A systematic analysis and key challenges. Pers Ubiquitous Comput. 2015 Feb;19(2):463–476. doi: 10.1007/s00779-014-0813-0.
    1. Balta-Ozkan N, Davidson R, Bicket M, Whitmarsh L. Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy. 2013;63:363–374.
    1. Doyle J, Bailey C, Ni Scanaill C, van den Berg F. Lessons learned in deploying independent living technologies to older adults' homes. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2014 Jun;13(2):191–204. doi: 10.1007/s10209-013-0308-1.
    1. Nieboer ME, van Hoof J, van Hout AM, Aarts S, Wouters EJM. Professional values, technology and future health care: The view of health care professionals in The Netherlands. Technol Soc. 2014 Nov;39:10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.05.003.
    1. Ehrenhard M, Kijl B, Nieuwenhuis L. Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2014 Nov;89:306–315. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.002.
    1. Sponselee AAG. Acceptance and effectiveness of smart home solutions. In: van Hoof J, Demiris G, Wouters EJM, editors. Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2014. Nov 4, pp. 1–12.
    1. Devlin AM, McGee-Lennon M, O'Donnell CA, Bouamrane MM, Agbakoba R, O'Connor S, Grieve E, Finch T, Wyke S, Watson N, Browne S, Mair FS, “dallas” evaluation team Delivering digital health and well-being at scale: Lessons learned during the implementation of the dallas program in the United Kingdom. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Jan;23(1):48–59. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv097.
    1. Peek STM, Aarts S, Wouters EJM. Can smart home technology deliver on the promise of independent living? A critical reflection based on the perspectives of older adults. In: van Hoof J, Demiris G, Wouters EJM, editors. Handbook of Smart Homes, Health Care and Well-Being. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015. Mar 6, pp. 1–10.
    1. Reeder B, Meyer E, Lazar A, Chaudhuri S, Thompson HJ, Demiris G. Framing the evidence for health smart homes and home-based consumer health technologies as a public health intervention for independent aging: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2013 Jul;82(7):565–579. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.03.007.
    1. Graybill EM, McMeekin P, Wildman J. Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e102705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102705.
    1. Boonstra A, van Offenbeek M. Towards consistent modes of e-health implementation: Structurational analysis of a telecare programme’s limited success. Inf Syst J. 2010 Aug 27;20(6):537–561. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2010.00358.x.
    1. Freeman RE. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing Inc; 2010. Mar, pp. 1–292.
    1. Frooman J. Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad Manage Rev. 1999 Apr 01;24(2):191–205. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.1893928.
    1. Clark J, McGee Lennon M. A stakeholder-centred exploration of the current barriers to the uptake of home care technology in the UK. J Assist Technol. 2011 Mar 18;5(1):12–25. doi: 10.5042/jat.2011.0097.
    1. Reginatto BMB. Understanding barriers to wider telehealth adoption in the home environment of older people: An exploratory study in the Irish context. J Adv Life Sci. 2012;4(3&4):63–76.
    1. Leonard KJ. Critical success factors relating to healthcare's adoption of new technology: A guide to increasing the likelihood of successful implementation. Electron Healthc. 2004 Mar;2(4):72–81.
    1. Sponselee A, Schouten B, Bouwhuis D, Willems C. Smart home technology for the elderly: Perceptions of multidisciplinary stakeholders. In: Mühlhäuser M, Ferscha A, Aitenbichler E, editors. Constructing Ambient Intelligence. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2008. pp. 314–326.
    1. Agbakoba R, McGee-Lennon M, Bouamrane M, Watson N, Mair FS. Implementation factors affecting the large-scale deployment of digital health and well-being technologies: A qualitative study of the initial phases of the 'Living-It-Up' programme. Health Informatics J. 2015 Aug 14;:1–11. doi: 10.1177/1460458215594651.
    1. Sugarhood P, Wherton J, Procter R, Hinder S, Greenhalgh T. Technology as system innovation: A key informant interview study of the application of the diffusion of innovation model to telecare. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014 Jan;9(1):79–87. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2013.823573.
    1. Murray E, Burns J, May C, Finch T, O'Donnell C, Wallace P, Mair F. Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2011;6:6. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-6.
    1. Sim J. Collecting and analysing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group. J Adv Nurs. 1998 Aug;28(2):345–352.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006 Jan;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. van Bronswijk JEMH, Bouma H, Fozard JL. Technology for quality of life: An enriched taxonomy. Gerontechnology. 2002;2(2):169–172. doi: 10.4017/gt.2002.02.02.001.00.
    1. Jarrold D, Bouamrane MM. Engaging with end-users of independent living technology in Scotland... The experience of the Blackwood Foundation. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth) and Workshops; 5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (PervasiveHealth) and Workshops; May 23-26, 2011; Dublin, Ireland. New York, NY: IEEE; 2011. pp. 278–282.
    1. Heinz M, Martin P, Margrett JA, Yearns M, Franke W, Yang H, Wong J, Chang CK. Perceptions of technology among older adults. J Gerontol Nurs. 2013 Jan;39(1):42–51. doi: 10.3928/00989134-20121204-04.
    1. Pecchia L, Chen LL, Nugent C, Bravo J, editors. Ambient Assisted Living and Daily Activities. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2014. Dec, Preface.
    1. Pagliari C, Sloan D, Gregor P, Sullivan F, Detmer D, Kahan JP, Oortwijn W, MacGillivray S. What is eHealth (4): A scoping exercise to map the field. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(1):e9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.1.e9.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Hinder S, Rouncefield M. What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services. BMC Med. 2015;13(91):1–15. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0279-6.
    1. Calvillo J, Román I, Roa LM. How technology is empowering patients? A literature review. Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):643–652. doi: 10.1111/hex.12089.
    1. Vrijhoef HJM. Patient engagement is the new hard currency in health care. Int J Care Coord. 2015 Mar;18(1):3–4. doi: 10.1177/2053434515577291.
    1. Richards T, Montori VM, Godlee F, Lapsley P, Paul D. Let the patient revolution begin. BMJ. 2013;346:f2614.
    1. Engelen L. BMJ Blogs. 2013. Aug 16, [2015-10-16]. Patients not included
    1. Bowman S, Hooker K, Steggell CD, Brandt J. Perceptions of communication and monitoring technologies among older rural women: Problem or panacea? J Hous Elderly. 2013 Jan;27(1-2):48–60. doi: 10.1080/02763893.2012.754814.
    1. Peek STM, Luijkx KG, Rijnaard MD, Nieboer ME, van der Voort CS, Aarts S, van Hoof J, Vrijhoef HJM, Wouters EJM. Older adults' reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology. 2016 Feb;62:226–237. doi: 10.1159/000430949.
    1. Samaras E, Samaras G. Stakeholder dissonance as a critical determinant of an e-health initiative: A case study. Online J Nurs Inform. 2012;16(1):36–38.
    1. Koopman RJ, Wakefield BJ, Johanning JL, Keplinger LE, Kruse RL, Bomar M, Bernt B, Wakefield DS, Mehr DR. Implementing home blood glucose and blood pressure telemonitoring in primary care practices for patients with diabetes: Lessons learned. Telemed J E Health. 2014 Mar;20(3):253–260. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0188.
    1. Essén A, Conrick M. New e-service development in the homecare sector: Beyond implementing a radical technology. Int J Med Inform. 2008 Oct;77(10):679–688. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.02.001.
    1. Hebert MA, Korabek B. Stakeholder readiness for telehomecare: Implications for implementation. Telemed J E Health. 2004;10(1):85–92. doi: 10.1089/153056204773644625.
    1. Agbakoba R, McGee-Lennon M, Bouamrane MM, Watson N, Mair F. Implementing a national Scottish digital health & wellbeing service at scale: A qualitative study of stakeholders' views. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:487–491.
    1. de Veer AJE, Fleuren MAH, Bekkema N, Francke AL. Successful implementation of new technologies in nursing care: A questionnaire survey of nurse-users. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011 Oct 27;11(67):1–12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-11-67.
    1. Robben SH, Perry M, Huisjes M, van Nieuwenhuijzen L, Schers HJ, van Weel C, Rikkert MG, van Achterberg T, Heinen MM, Melis RJ. Implementation of an innovative web-based conference table for community-dwelling frail older people, their informal caregivers and professionals: A process evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Aug 15;12(251):1–12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-251.
    1. Vitacca M, Mazzù M, Scalvini S. Socio-technical and organizational challenges to wider e-Health implementation. Chron Respir Dis. 2009;6(2):91–97. doi: 10.1177/1479972309102805.
    1. Linskell J, Bouamrane MM. Assisted-living spaces for end-users with complex needs: A proposed implementation and delivery model. Health Informatics J. 2012 Sep;18(3):159–170. doi: 10.1177/1460458212441474.
    1. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009 Jun 15;43(3):535–554. doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208.
    1. May CR, Mair F, Finch T, MacFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, Rapley T, Ballini L, Ong BN, Rogers A, Murray E, Elwyn G, Légaré F, Gunn J, Montori VM. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: Normalization Process Theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4(29):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-29.
    1. Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Finch T, Kennedy A, Mair F, O'Donnell C, Ong BN, Rapley T, Rogers A, May C. Normalisation process theory: A framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med. 2010;8(63):1–11. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-63.
    1. Mair FS, May C, O'Donnell C, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: An explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2012 May 1;90(5):357–364. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.099424.
    1. Luijkx K, Peek S, Wouters E. "Grandma, you should do it--It's cool": Older adults and the role of family members in their acceptance of technology. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(12):15470–15485. doi: 10.3390/ijerph121214999.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe