IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v10y2013i11p5541-5564d29964.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Technology in Care at Home Affects Patient Self-Care and Self-Management: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • José M. Peeters

    (NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Otterstraat 118-124, Utrecht 3513 CR, The Netherlands)

  • Therese A. Wiegers

    (NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Otterstraat 118-124, Utrecht 3513 CR, The Netherlands)

  • Roland D. Friele

    (NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Otterstraat 118-124, Utrecht 3513 CR, The Netherlands
    Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, Tilburg 5037 AB, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The use of technology in care at home has potential benefits such as improved quality of care. This includes greater focus on the patients’ role in managing their health and increased patient involvement in the care process. The objective of this scoping review is to analyse the existing evidence for effects of technology in home-based care on patients’ self-care and self-management. Using suitable search terms we searched the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, Picarta and NIVEL dating from 2002 to 2012. Thirty-three studies (six review studies and twenty-seven individual studies) were selected. Effects were extracted from each study and were classified. In almost all the studies, the concepts self-care and self-management are not clearly defined or operationalized. Therefore, based on a meta-analysis, we made a new classification of outcome measures, with hierarchical levels: (1) competence (2) illness-management (3) independence (social participation, autonomy). In general, patient outcomes appear to be positive or promising, but most studies were pilot studies. We did not find strong evidence that technology in care at home has (a positive) effect on patient self-care and self-management according to the above classification. Future research is needed to clarify how technology can be used to maximize its benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • José M. Peeters & Therese A. Wiegers & Roland D. Friele, 2013. "How Technology in Care at Home Affects Patient Self-Care and Self-Management: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:10:y:2013:i:11:p:5541-5564:d:29964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/11/5541/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/11/5541/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoenig, H. & Taylor Jr., D.H. & Sloan, F.A., 2003. "Does assistive technology substitute for personal assistance among the disabled elderly?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(2), pages 330-337.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pernille Ravn Jakobsen & Anne Pernille Hermann & Jens Søndergaard & Uffe Kock Wiil & Jane Clemensen, 2018. "Development of an mHealth Application for Women Newly Diagnosed with Osteoporosis without Preceding Fractures: A Participatory Design Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Martin Kopecky & Hana Tomaskova, 2020. "The Business Process Model and Notation Used for the Representation of Alzheimer’s Disease Patients Care Process," Data, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Farzana Ashfaq & Nabila Soomro & Zubia Saleem & Bushra Ejaz & Sagar Pinjani, 2019. "Efficacy of Adaptive Devices for Improving ADL’s and Quality of Life in Patients with Multiple Conditions," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 3(11), pages 405-408, November.
    2. José Álvarez-García & Amador Durán-Sánchez & María de la Cruz del Río-Rama & Ronny Correa-Quezada, 2019. "Older Adults and Digital Society: Scientific Coverage," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Maaike Diepstraten & Rudy Douven & Bram Wouterse, 2019. "Can your house keep you out of a nursing home?," CPB Discussion Paper 397, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    4. Maaike Diepstraten & Rudy Douven & Bram Wouterse, 2019. "Can your house keep you out of a nursing home?," CPB Discussion Paper 397.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    5. Barbara Lepidus Carlson & Stacy Dale & Leslie Foster & Randall Brown & Barbara Phillips & Jennifer Schore, "undated". "Effect of Consumer Direction on Adults' Personal Care and Well-Being in Arkansas, New Jersey, and Florida," Mathematica Policy Research Reports c1207de72e8b4235b6d48eb47, Mathematica Policy Research.
    6. Lois B. Shaw, 2006. "Differing Prospects For Women and Men: Young Old-Age, Old Old-Age, and Elder Care," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_464, Levy Economics Institute.
    7. Ozbugday, Fatih Cemil & Tirgil, Abdullah & Kose, Elif Gul, 2020. "Efficiency changes in long-term care in OECD countries: A non-parametric Malmquist Index approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    8. Ellen Herlache-Pretzer & Melissa Y. Winkle & Rachel Csatari & Alyssa Kolanowski & Amy Londry & Rachel Dawson, 2017. "The Impact of Service Dogs on Engagement in Occupation among Females with Mobility Impairments: A Qualitative Descriptive Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-9, June.
    9. repec:mpr:mprres:4552 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Davin, Bérengère & Paraponaris, Alain & Verger, Pierre, 2009. "Socioeconomic determinants of the need for personal assistance reported by community-dwelling elderly: Empirical evidence from a French national health survey," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 138-146, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:10:y:2013:i:11:p:5541-5564:d:29964. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.