Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T08:22:06.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring factors that impact the decision to use assistive telecare: perspectives of family care-givers of older people in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2017

ERICA J. COOK ,
GURCH RANDHAWA ,
ANDY GUPPY ,
CHLOE SHARP ,
GARRY BARTON ,
ANDREW BATEMAN  and
JANE CRAWFORD-WHITE
ERICA J. COOK*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
GURCH RANDHAWA
Affiliation:
Institute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
ANDY GUPPY
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
CHLOE SHARP
Affiliation:
Institute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
GARRY BARTON
Affiliation:
Norwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
ANDREW BATEMAN
Affiliation:
Cambridgeshire Community Services, Cambridge NHS Trust, UK.
JANE CRAWFORD-WHITE
Affiliation:
Cambridgeshire Community Services, Cambridge NHS Trust, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Erica J. Cook, Department of Psychology, University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton, LU1 3JU, UK E-mail: erica.cook@beds.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the United Kingdom (UK), an ageing population met with the reduction of social care funding has led to reduced support for older people marked with an increased demand on family care-givers. Assistive telecare (AT) devices are viewed as an innovative and effective way to support older people. However, there is limited research which has explored adoption of AT from the perspectives of family care-givers. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 family care-givers of patients who used the Assistive Telehealth and Telecare service in Cambridgeshire, UK. Family care-givers were either the spouse (N = 8) or child of the patient (N = 6). The patients' age ranged from 75 to 98, and either received a telecare standalone device or connected service. Framework analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. This study revealed that family care-givers play a crucial role in supporting the patient's decision to adopt and engage with AT devices. Knowledge and awareness, perceived responsibility, usefulness and usability, alongside functionality of the equipment, were influential factors in the decision-making process. AT devices were viewed positively, considered easy to use, useful and functional, with reassurance of the patient's safety being a core reason for adoption. Efforts to increase adoption and engagement should adapt recruitment strategies and service pathways to support both the patient and their care-giver.

Keywords

telecareadoptionassistive technologyolder peopleinformal carefamily care-givers
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 38 , Issue 9 , September 2018 , pp. 1912 - 1932
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beesley, L. 2006. Wanless Social Care Review: Informal Care in England. Kings Fund, London.Google Scholar
Botsis, T., Demiris, G., Pedersen, S. and Hartvigsen, G. 2008. Home telecare technologies for the elderly. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare, 14, 7, 333–7.Google Scholar
Cahill, S., Begley, E., Faulkner, J. and Hagen, I. 2007. ‘It gives me a sense of independence’: findings from Ireland on the use and usefulness of assistive technology for people with dementia. Technology & Disability, 19, 3, 133–42.Google Scholar
Cardon, T. A., Wilcox, M. J. and Campbell, P. H. 2011. Caregiver perspectives about assistive technology use with their young children with autism spectrum disorders. Infants & Young Children, 24, 2, 153–73.Google Scholar
Carers UK 2013 a. Carers UK for DAP Connect: Project Report. Carers UK, London.Google Scholar
Carers UK 2013 b. Supporting Working Carers: The Benefits to Families, Business and the Economy. Carers UK, London.Google Scholar
Carretero, S., Centeno, C. and Stewart, J. 2013. Telecare and telehealth for informal carers: a research in 12 Member States on their benefits and policy role for the success. In International Journal of Integrated Care (ed.), International Congress on Telehealth and Telecare. Igitur Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Cook, E. J., Randhawa, G., Sharp, C., Ali, N., Guppy, A., Barton, G., Bateman, A. and Crawford-White, J. 2016. Exploring the factors that influence the decision to adopt and engage with an integrated assistive telehealth and telecare service in Cambridgeshire, UK: a nested qualitative study of patient ‘users’ and ‘non-users’. BMC Health Services Research, 16, 1, 137.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, L., Demack, S. and Bambra, C. 2007. Age and gender of informal carers: a population-based study in the UK. Health and Social Care in the Community, 15, 5, 439–45.Google Scholar
Demiris, G., Rantz, M., Aud, M., Marek, D., Tyrer, H., Skubic, M. and Hussam, A. 2004. Older adults’ attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: a pilot study. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 29, 2, 87–94.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2008. Carers at the heart of 21st-century families and communities. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2009. An Overview of Telecare and Telehealth. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health 2012. Long-term Conditions Compendium of Information. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Doran, T., Drever, F. and Whitehead, M. 2003. Health of young and elderly informal carers: analysis of UK census data. British Medical Journal, 327, 7428, 1388.Google Scholar
Hoffman, F. and Rodrigues, R. 2010. Informal Carers: Who Takes Care of Them? European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, Vienna.Google Scholar
Jones, D. and Peters, T. 1992. Caring for elderly dependants: effects on the carers’ quality of life. Age & Ageing, 21, 6, 421–8.Google Scholar
Livingston, G., Manela, M. and Katona, C. 1996. Depression and other psychiatric morbidity in carers of elderly people living at home. British Medical Journal, 312, 7024, 153–6.Google Scholar
Magnusson, L., Hanson, E. and Nolan, M. 2005. The impact of information and communication technology on family carers of older people and professionals in Sweden. Ageing & Society, 25, 5, 693–713.Google Scholar
Maher, J. and Green, H. 2002. Carers 2000. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
May, C., Finch, T., Cornford, J., Exley, C., Gately, C., Kirk, S., Jenkings, K., Osbourne, J., Robinson, A. and Rogers, A. 2011. Integrating telecare for chronic disease management in the community: what needs to be done? BMC Health Service Research, 11, 1, 131.Google Scholar
McCreadie, C. and Tinker, A. 2005. The acceptability of assistive technology to older people. Ageing & Society, 25, 1, 91–110.Google Scholar
Morris, M. G. and Venkatesh, V. 2000. Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications for a changing work force. Personality & Social Psychology, 53, 2, 375–403.Google Scholar
Mortenson, W. B., Demers, L., Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Lenker, J. and DeRuyter, F. 2012. How assistive technology use by individuals with disabilities impacts their caregivers: a systematic review of the research evidence. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 91, 11, 984–98.Google Scholar
Nicholson, J., Coates, L., Mountain, G. and Hawley, M. 2013. Barriers and facilitators to mainstreaming telehealth in the community – exploring staff views and roles at the implementation and delivery phase. In International Journal of Integrated Care (ed.), International Congress on Telehealth and Telecare. Igitur Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Nicolson, A., Moir, L. and Millsteed, J. 2012. Impact of assistive technology on family caregivers of children with physical disabilities: a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 7, 5, 345–9.Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics 2013. 2011 Census Analysis: Unpaid Care in England and Wales, 2011 and Comparison with 2001. Office for National Statistics, London.Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics 2011. Census Glossary of Terms. Office for National Statistics, London.Google Scholar
Pickard, L., Wittenberg, R., Comas-Herrera, A., Davies, B. and Darton, R. 2000. Relying on informal care in the new century? Informal care for elderly people in England to 2031. Ageing & Society, 20, 6, 745–72.Google Scholar
Pinquart, M. and Sörensen, S. 2007. Correlates of physical health of informal caregivers: a meta-analysis. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62B, 2, 126–37.Google Scholar
Prince, M., Wu, F., Guo, Y., Robledo, L. G., O'Donnell, M., Sullivan, R. and Yusuf, S. 2015. The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and practice. The Lancet, 385, 9967, 549–62.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. 2003. Qualitative Reserch Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, L., Kottorp, A. and Nygård, L. 2012. Readiness for technology use with people with dementia: the perspectives of significant others. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31, 4, 510–50.Google Scholar
Sanders, C., Rogers, A., Bowen, R., Bower, P., Hirani, S., Cartwright, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Knapp, M., Barlow, J., Hendy, J., Chrysanthaki, T., Bardsley, M. and Newman, S. 2012. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 12, 1, 220.Google Scholar
Social Care Institute for Excellence 2010. At a Glance 24: Ethical Issues in the Use of Telecare. Social Care Institute for Excellence, London.Google Scholar
Sugarhood, P., Wherton, J., Procter, R., Hinder, S. and Greenhalgh, T. 2014. Technology as system innovation: a key informant interview study of the application of the diffusion of innovation model to telecare. Disabilbility Rehabilitation: Assistive Technolology, 9, 1, 79–87.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. (ed.) 2015. Key Issues for the 2015 Parliament. House of Commons Library, London.Google Scholar
Topacan, U., Basoglu, N. and Daim, T. 2009. Health information service adoption: case of telemedicine. In 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii.Google Scholar
Topo, P. 2009. Technology studies to meet the needs of people with dementia and their caregivers. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 28, 1, 5–37.Google Scholar
Topo, P., Saarikalle, K., Begley, E., Cahill, S., Holthe, T. and Macijauskiene, J. 2007. ‘I don't know about the past or the future, but today it's Friday’ – evaluation of a time aid for people with dementia. Technology & Disability, 19, 2–3, 121–31.Google Scholar
Turnstall Alzheimer's 2008. Support for People with Alzheimer's: Issues of Ethics and Consent. Available online at http://www.alzheimers-support.com/en-GB/ethics.html [Accessed 9 February 2017].Google Scholar
Van Houtven, C. H. and Norton, E. C. 2004. Informal care and health care use of older adults. Journal of Health Economics, 23, 6, 1159–80.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, R., Hu, B., Comas-Herrera, A. and Fernandez, J.-L. 2012. Care for Older People: Projected Expenditure to 2022 on Social Care and Continuing Health Care for England's Older Population. Nuffield Trust, London.Google Scholar