Benefits and barriers associated with the use of smart home health technologies in the care of older persons: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Smart home health technologies (SHHTs) have been discussed in the frame of caregiving to enable aging-in-place and independence. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines to gather the up-to-date knowledge on the benefits and barriers of using SHHTs in the care of older persons from the perspective of older persons and their caregivers.

Methods

Ten electronic databases were reviewed for empirical peer-reviewed literature published from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2021 in English, German, and French reporting on experimental, qualitative, quantitative, and other empirical study designs were included. Included studies contained user-feedback from older persons over 65 years of age or their caregivers (formal and informal). We used an extraction document to collect relevant data from all included studies and applied narrative synthesis to analyze data related to benefits and barriers of SHHTs.

Results

163 empirical peer-reviewed articles were included, the majority of those published between 2014 and 2021. Five first-order categories of benefits and five of barriers were found with individual sub-themes. SHHTs could be useful in the care context where continuous monitoring is needed. They improve self-management and independent living of older persons. Barriers currently exist with respect to ease of usability, social acceptance, and cost.

Conclusions

SHHTs could be useful in the care context but are not without concerns. Researchers and policy makers can use the information as a starting point to better understand how the roles and outcomes of SHHTs could be improved for the care of older persons, while caregivers of older adults could use our findings to comprehend the scope of SHHTs and to decide when and where such technology could best address their individual family needs. Limitations lie in the possible exclusion of relevant articles published outside the inclusion criteria as well as the fact that due to digital divide, our review represents opinions of those who could and wanted to participate in the included 163 studies.

Trial registration

This review has been registered as PROSPERO CRD42021248543. A protocol was completed in March 2021 with the PRISMA-P guidance. We have extended the review period from 2000 to 2020 since the registration of the protocol to 2000–2021.