JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The implementation of welfare technologies has increased rapidly in recent years, offering new ways of delivering care. There are high expectations regarding the potential benefits of using welfare technologies, and of providing training in their use. However, studies of welfare technology use in the social care sector are scarce, and therefore there is limited empirical evidence that such expectations are being borne out.

Objective:

To explore the use of different types of welfare technologies, and training in the use of these technologies, and to identify their associations with outcomes for care recipients and frontline care workers in the social care of older adults.

Methods:

A cross-sectional survey based on a nation-wide randomised sample of assistant nurses aged ≥18 years and employed in social care for older adults in Sweden (N=1163). Dependent variables were outcomes for care recipients (continuity of care, participation, reduction in loneliness/social isolation) and competence development for frontline care workers. Associations between exposure and dependent variables were assessed through sequential logistic regression models.

Results:

Digital documentation and planning (73.3%) and digital locks (55.7) were commonly used welfare technologies in social care for older adults. Fifty-seven percent of the participants received training in the use of welfare technologies. Use of interactive technologies was significantly associated with continuity of care (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.12-2.11), participation (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.49-2.75), reduction in loneliness/social isolation (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.42-2.60), and competence development (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.52-3.62). There were significant associations between digital documentation and continuity of care (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.29-3.20), digital locks/cameras/sensors and participation (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.46-0.83), digital support in medicine (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05-2.28), digital documentation (OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.43-3.47), and competence development. Training in the use of welfare technology was significantly associated with continuity of care (OR 4.48; 95% CI 2.44-8.23), participation (OR 3.70; 95% CI 2.03-6.75), reduction in loneliness/social isolation (OR 4.36; 95% CI 2.38-7.99), and competence development (OR 5.48; 95% CI 2.86-10.49). Participants who had received training perceived negative associations between the use of digital documentation and outcomes for care recipients.

Conclusions:

The potential outcomes of welfare technology use in the social care for older adults can vary with the types of technologies used. Training in the use of welfare technologies was positively associated with perceptions that welfare technologies use improved outcomes for care recipients as well as competence development of frontline care workers. However, one third of the participants did not receive training in the use of welfare technologies. These findings suggest that investing resources to promote training for care workers in the use of welfare technologies can reinforce positive experiences and sustainable social care practices.