A study examining the impacts of assistive technology using a capability-based framework, focusing on person-centred outcomes beyond device provision.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This paper reframes the use of technology in care by focusing on what assistive technology enables people to do and be, rather than on the devices themselves. By applying a capability-based approach, it highlights outcomes such as independence, safety and social participation that are often overlooked in standard evaluations.
From a care equity perspective, this shift is important. Measuring success through device provision alone risks masking unequal experiences, where some users are unable to benefit due to affordability, usability or lack of training.
The findings suggest that person-centred evaluation could support more equitable commissioning and service design. Understanding which capabilities are enhanced, and for whom, may help identify where assistive technology is failing to meet needs.
However, the study also highlights systemic limitations. Without standardised capability measures embedded in routine practice, these outcomes remain difficult to track or compare. Addressing this gap is essential if assistive technology is to contribute meaningfully to equitable care rather than reinforcing existing barriers.
A public data tool and methodology designed to identify areas and populations at highest risk of digital exclusion to support targeted inclusion investment.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
The Digital Exclusion Risk Index (DERI) provides a practical way to make digital exclusion visible at place level. By combining multiple indicators into a single framework, it enables decision-makers to move beyond assumptions and identify where exclusion is most likely to affect access to services.
In the context of technology-enabled care, this kind of tool supports more deliberate targeting of support. Rather than distributing resources evenly or reactively, DERI allows local systems to prioritise areas where lack of access, skills or connectivity is most acute.
The emphasis on publishing metrics is particularly important. Making digital exclusion risk transparent creates a basis for accountability and supports alignment between digital strategies and wider work on inequality across health and social care.
Overall, DERI shows how data infrastructure can underpin more equitable use of technology in care. Its value lies not in replacing local knowledge, but in strengthening the evidence base for place-based action on digital inclusion.
A review examining the impact of digital technologies in UK secondary mental health care, with a focus on innovation, data use and co-produced digital tools.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This paper highlights both the promise and the uncertainty surrounding digital technologies in mental health care. While new tools offer opportunities to enhance data sharing and clinical insight, their success depends heavily on alignment with service users’ needs and experiences.
A recurring theme is the importance of co-production. Digital tools designed without meaningful involvement of people living with mental health conditions risk being poorly adopted or misaligned with real-world care. This is particularly relevant in secondary care, where needs are often complex and long term.
At the same time, the review points to a thin evidence base. Small studies and short follow-up periods make it difficult to judge whether digital interventions improve outcomes or simply add complexity to already stretched services.
Overall, the paper suggests that digital innovation in secondary mental health care should prioritise learning and evaluation over rapid scale-up. Careful design, inclusive involvement and longer-term evidence are needed if technology is to strengthen care without introducing new forms of exclusion or risk.
A scoping review and interview study examining the use of video consultation technology between care homes and health and social care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This study captures how video consultation technology was introduced into care homes under pandemic conditions. It shows that while video consultations offered a way to maintain clinical input, their effectiveness depended heavily on infrastructure, staff capacity and organisational support.
Differences in digital capability between health and social care organisations were particularly evident. Care home staff often had fewer tools and less access to integrated systems, making coordination more complex and increasing reliance on workarounds.
In terms of care equity, the study highlights how unequal digital investment across sectors can shape access to care for residents. Where care homes lacked robust platforms or support, residents were less able to benefit from remote clinical input. This unevenness risks creating a two-tier experience of technology-enabled care based on setting rather than need.
Overall, the findings suggest that technology use in care homes must be informed by the experiences of both staff and residents. Without addressing structural gaps in digital capability across social care, video consultation risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than improving access and quality of care.
A study examining how the shift to digital primary care affects access for minoritised ethnic communities, highlighting digital exclusion, language barriers and structural inequities.
Key statistics
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This study explores how the move towards digital GP services is affecting people from minoritised ethnic communities in the UK. It shows that while digital systems are intended to improve access, they can create new barriers for people who already face disadvantages.
Many participants described what the authors call “digital precarity”. This includes not having reliable internet, lacking suitable devices, or not having the skills to use online systems. For some people living on low incomes or in temporary housing, even downloading GP apps or maintaining mobile data was difficult.
Language is another major issue. Most GP apps and online systems are only available in English, which makes it difficult for people who are not confident in reading or writing English. Some rely on family members or friends to help, which can reduce privacy and delay care.
The study also highlights how care responsibilities are unevenly distributed. Women in multi-generational households often manage multiple GP accounts for children, parents and relatives. This creates additional pressure and can slow down access to services.
There are also concerns about how digital systems are used in clinical care. Some participants reported that sending photos or describing symptoms online did not work well for people with darker skin tones. This reflects wider gaps in clinical training and risks delaying diagnosis or treatment.
From a health and social care equity perspective, the findings show how digital transformation can widen existing inequities if systems are not designed inclusively. People who face barriers related to income, language, ethnicity or housing are more likely to be excluded from digital services.
Overall, the study highlights that improving access is not only about introducing new technology. It requires designing services around the needs of different groups, maintaining alternative access routes, and addressing structural inequities that affect how people engage with care.
A review exploring how digital technologies are transforming mental health care, including their potential to improve access alongside barriers related to workforce readiness, trust, and unequal access to digital resources.
Key statistics
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This paper looks at how digital technology is changing mental health care. It shows that more people are using the internet and smartphones to find information, track their symptoms and access support. For some people, this can make it easier to get help, especially if they feel uncomfortable with face-to-face services or live in areas with limited provision.
However, access to digital care is not equal. While many people now use the internet regularly, not everyone has the same level of access, confidence or skills. Some people may not have reliable internet or devices, while others may struggle to use digital tools. This creates a risk that digital approaches could widen existing inequities if they are not designed and implemented carefully.
The paper also highlights concerns from staff and service users. Some worry that digital tools could reduce human contact or be used as a cheaper alternative to proper care. Others are concerned about how personal data is collected and used. These concerns can affect trust and willingness to engage with digital services.
Another key issue is the gap between how quickly digital tools are being developed and how slowly they are evaluated. Many tools are introduced before there is strong evidence on how well they work or who they work best for. This makes it harder for services to know which tools to adopt.
From a health and social care equity perspective, digital technology has both potential and risk. It can improve access by reaching people in their everyday lives and offering flexible support. At the same time, if issues like digital exclusion, workforce readiness and trust are not addressed, it may reinforce existing inequities.
Overall, the paper suggests that digital mental health care should be developed alongside, not instead of, wider investment in services and support. A balanced approach is needed so that technology improves access without reducing the quality or equity of care.
