Technology as system innovation: a key informant interview study of the application of the diffusion of innovation model to telecare

Abstract Purpose: To identify and explore factors that influence adoption, implementation and continued use of telecare technologies. Method: As part of the Assistive Technologies for Healthy Living in Elders: Needs Assessment by Ethnography (ATHENE) project, 16 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key participants from organisations involved in developing and providing telecare technologies and services. Data were analysed thematically, using a conceptual model of diffusion of innovations. Results: Participants identified numerous interacting factors that facilitated or hindered adoption and use. As predicted by the model, these related variously to the technology, individual adopters, the process of social influence, the innovativeness and readiness of organisations, implementation and routinisation processes following initial adoption, and the nature and strength of linkages between these elements. Key issues included (i) the complexity and uniqueness of the “user system”, (ii) the ongoing work needed to support telecare use beyond initial adoption, and (iii) the relatively weak links that typically exist between users of telecare technologies and the organisations who design and distribute them. Conclusions: Telecare is not merely a technology but a complex innovation requiring input from, and coordination between, people and organisations. To promote adoption and use, these contextual factors must be specified, understood and addressed. Implications for Rehabilitation Telecare should not be thought of as a “plug and play” technology but as a complex innovation requiring input from, and coordination between, people and organisations. To promote adoption and use of telecare, a number of contextual factors must be specified, understood and addressed. End users and other stakeholders should be linked at the earliest stages of design and development. Such co-production should aim to identify how technologies might better fit with users’ material surroundings, social networks and desired lifestyles, rather than being technology-driven and focused on proof of concept or usability.

[1]  D. Wanless Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View. Conclusions and recommendations , 2002 .

[2]  Rob Procter,et al.  ATHENE : Assistive technologies for healthy living in elders : needs assessment by ethnography , 2011 .

[3]  Nick Goodwin,et al.  The State of Telehealth and Telecare in the UK: Prospects for Integrated Care , 2010 .

[4]  N. Goodwin,et al.  Sustaining innovation in telehealth and telecare: WSDAN briefing paper , 2010 .

[5]  F. Mair,et al.  Integrating telecare for chronic disease management in the community: What needs to be done? , 2011, BMC health services research.

[6]  Suzanne Martin,et al.  Smart home technologies for health and social care support. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  Nelly E.J. Oudshoorn,et al.  Telecare Technologies and the Transformation of Healthcare , 2011 .

[8]  Joseph P. Wherton,et al.  Designing assisted living technologies ‘in the wild’: preliminary experiences with cultural probe methodology , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[9]  Jane Hendy,et al.  The adoption of telecare in the community. , 2012, Community practitioner : the journal of the Community Practitioners' & Health Visitors' Association.

[10]  Jennifer Dixon,et al.  Effect of telecare on use of health and social care services: findings from the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial , 2013, Age and ageing.

[11]  Joseph P. Wherton,et al.  The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis , 2012, BMJ Open.

[12]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Divining a Digital Future - Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing , 2011 .

[13]  Wendy Olphert,et al.  User Responses to Assisted Living Technologies (ALTs) — A Review of the Literature , 2010 .

[14]  G. Robert,et al.  Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. , 2004, The Milbank quarterly.

[15]  G. Robert,et al.  Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: A systematic review , 2010, Journal of health services research & policy.

[16]  OfCom,et al.  Assisted living technologies for older and disabled people in 2030 , 2010 .

[17]  Anneke L Francke,et al.  Factors influencing the adoption of home telecare by elderly or chronically ill people: a national survey. , 2012, Journal of clinical nursing.

[18]  James Stewart,et al.  Social Learning in Technological Innovation: Experimenting with Information and Communication Technologies , 2005 .

[19]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[20]  Steven A. Cohen,et al.  A review of demographic and infrastructural factors and potential solutions to the physician and nursing shortage predicted to impact the growing US elderly population. , 2009, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[21]  Nelly Oudshoorn,et al.  How places matter: Telecare technologies and the changing spatial dimensions of healthcare , 2012, Social studies of science.

[22]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Ubicomp 2001: Ubiquitous Computing , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[23]  G. Demiris,et al.  Technologies for an Aging Society: A Systematic Review of “Smart Home” Applications , 2008, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[24]  Marc Berg,et al.  Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges , 2001, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[25]  J. Barlow,et al.  Implementing complex innovations in fluid multi-stakeholder environments: Experiences of ‘telecare’ , 2006 .

[26]  Julienne Hanson,et al.  Big brother or brave new world? Telecare and its implications for older people’s independence and social inclusion , 2006 .

[27]  W. Keith Edwards,et al.  At Home with Ubiquitous Computing: Seven Challenges , 2001, UbiComp.