IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2754-d759364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Social Care: The Potential of Mainstream “Smart” Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Hamblin

    (Centre for International Research on Care, Labour and Equalities (CIRCLE), University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK)

Abstract

Recent proposals for reform in England have presented widely available “smart” mainstream digital devices as a means to address some of the challenges facing adult social care and as alternatives to unsustainable analogue “telecare” systems. Drawing on 40 interviews with experts from local authorities, the care and technology sectors, and people with lived experience of social care services, we explored how mainstream technologies are being used in practice in England and critically examined their potential to contribute to policy priorities of wellbeing and sustainability. Across all expert groups interviewed, examples were cited in which the use of mainstream devices supported the economic sustainability of adult social care and/or enhanced aspects of wellbeing, moving the role of technology in care beyond monitoring and managing risks. However, when viewed through a three-dimensional conceptual lens that includes material, relational and subjective wellbeing, the use of smart devices in practice also created tensions and trade-offs between the dimensions, with implications for sustainability. The various ways mainstream devices are being used in adult social care also raised complexities related to risks, responsibilities, and inequalities and required “wraparound services”, tempering their ability to deliver cost savings. To address these issues, we suggest a person-centred approach to technology across local authorities, with investment in wraparound services and to mediate inequalities associated with the “digital divide”.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Hamblin, 2022. "Sustainable Social Care: The Potential of Mainstream “Smart” Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2754-:d:759364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2754/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2754/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henderson, Catherine & Knapp, Martin & Fernández, José-Luis & Beecham, Jennifer & Hirani, Shashivadan P. & Beynon, Michelle & Cartwright, Martin & Rixon, Lorna & Doll, Helen & Bower, Peter & Steventon, 2014. "Cost-effectiveness of telecare for people with social care needs: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57270, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Milligan, Christine & Roberts, Celia & Mort, Maggie, 2011. "Telecare and older people: Who cares where?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 347-354, February.
    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. Hayet Kerras & Susana Bautista & Danilo Santos Piñeros Perea & María Dolores de-Miguel Gómez, 2022. "Closing the Digital Gender Gap among Foreign University Students: The Challenges Ahead," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-28, September.
    2. Claudia E. Stoian & Marcela A. Fărcașiu & Gabriel-Mugurel Dragomir & Vasile Gherheș, 2022. "Transition from Online to Face-to-Face Education after COVID-19: The Benefits of Online Education from Students’ Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.

    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. Barlow, J & Knapp, M & Comas-Herrera, A & Damant, J & Freddolino, P & Hamblin, K & Hu, B & Lorenz, K & Perkins, M & Rehill, A & Wittenberg, R & Woolham, J, 2015. "The case for investment in technology to manage the global costs of dementia," Working Papers 72399, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
    2. Cecilie Karlsen & Carl Erik Moe & Kristin Haraldstad & Elin Thygesen, 2019. "Caring by telecare? A hermeneutic study of experiences among older adults and their family caregivers," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(7-8), pages 1300-1313, April.
    3. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Paul Stolee & Don Juzwishin & Don Husereau, 2018. "Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, June.
    4. Muhammad N. Mahmood & Subas P. Dhakal, 2023. "Ageing population and society: a scientometric analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3133-3150, August.
    5. Toms, G. & Verity, F. & Orrell, A., 2019. "Social care technologies for older people: Evidence for instigating a broader and more inclusive dialogue," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    6. Linda Rykkje & Gunhild H. B. Hjorth, 2017. "“Safety at Home†: Experiences From Testing of Video Communication Between Patients and Home Health Care Personnel," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(4), pages 21582440177, December.
    7. Andrea Gabrio & Alexina J. Mason & Gianluca Baio, 2017. "Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review with Future Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 79-97, June.
    8. Kevin Momanyi, 2018. "A Structural Model of The Demand For Telecare," 2018 Papers pmo1170, Job Market Papers.
    9. Peter Baum & Fabienne Abadie, 2012. "Strategic Intelligence Monitor on Personal Health Systems Phase 2, Market Developments Remote Patient Monitoring and Treatment, Telecare, Fitness/Wellness and mHealth," JRC Research Reports JRC71141, Joint Research Centre.
    10. Hubers, Christa & Lyons, Glenn, 2013. "New technologies for the old: Potential implications of living in later life for travel demand," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 220-228.
    11. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2754-:d:759364. 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.