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 qualitative study examining how the digitalisation of social care affects older unpaid carers, focusing on choice, coercion and exclusion.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This study shows how the digitalisation of social care reshapes everyday caring work for older unpaid carers. While digital tools were sometimes seen as useful, many carers described a loss of choice as non-digital routes were reduced or removed.
Affordability and skills gaps emerged as central barriers. For carers already managing significant responsibilities, the need to pay for devices or data and to develop digital confidence added pressure rather than relief. These constraints meant that digital systems often worked better for those with existing resources, leaving others struggling to engage.
The findings also highlight the importance of how digital change is implemented. Where carers were not involved in design decisions, digital services were more likely to feel imposed and poorly aligned with real-world caring contexts. In contrast, co-produced approaches were seen as more responsive and respectful of carers’ needs.
Overall, the study illustrates that digital social care can either support or undermine access depending on the choices made around funding, design and delivery. Retaining offline options and providing practical support for connectivity and skills are not transitional measures, but essential conditions for fair and workable digital care.
A randomised controlled trial evaluating whether a comprehensive telecare package improves outcomes for people with dementia compared with a basic telecare offer.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This NIHR trial provides some of the strongest evidence on the limits of telecare effectiveness in dementia care. By comparing a comprehensive telecare package with a basic offer, it challenges assumptions that more technology necessarily leads to better outcomes.
From a care equity standpoint, the findings highlight risks in technology-led approaches that do not account for individual context. Standardised packages may fail to support people with dementia whose needs, capabilities and environments vary widely.
The results align with qualitative evidence showing that personalisation, support and fit with daily life are critical to successful technology use. Without these elements, telecare may add complexity without delivering meaningful benefit.
Overall, the study highlights that the use of technology in care must be grounded in person-centred assessment and ongoing support. Technology alone is insufficient to improve outcomes, and poorly matched interventions risk diverting resources from more effective forms of care.
A review examining the opportunities and risks associated with the growing use of mainstream digital technologies and technology-enabled care services in UK adult social care, particularly in the context of the planned shift from analogue to digital telecommunications networks.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps highlighted
Commentary
This review examines how technology is positioned as a potential response to long-standing challenges in adult social care, including population ageing, workforce pressures and increasing demand for care. It highlights the growing interest among commissioners in using digital and mainstream consumer technologies as part of technology-enabled care services.
However, the paper emphasises that this shift is occurring alongside a major infrastructure change: the transition from analogue telephone systems to digital networks. Many existing telecare devices rely on analogue connections, meaning they must be replaced or adapted to function in digital environments. This transition introduces practical and safety challenges, particularly if systems are not upgraded in time or if connectivity is unreliable.
The review also highlights regulatory and ethical considerations associated with the use of mainstream technologies. Devices such as smart speakers are not designed as social alarm systems and therefore do not follow the same safety standards or fail-safe protocols. At the same time, concerns around data privacy, security and informed consent arise when such devices collect and process personal information.
In relation to care equity, the paper identifies the digital divide as a major concern for technology-enabled care. Differences in broadband availability, mobile connectivity, income and digital literacy mean that some communities may not be able to benefit from digital care technologies. If technology becomes a central mechanism for delivering services, these disparities could reinforce existing inequities in access to support.
Overall, the paper argues that the adoption of technology in adult social care should be guided by robust evidence and user-centred commissioning. Rather than assuming that digital innovation will automatically improve care, policymakers and commissioners must consider infrastructure, regulation, safety and user experience when designing technology-enabled services.
An evidence review examining digital technology developments in health and social care, the barriers to adoption, and actions needed to support effective and inclusive use.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This review provides a system-level view of why digital transformation in health and social care often falls short of its potential. Rather than focusing solely on technology, it highlights the importance of leadership, culture and investment in shaping how digital tools are adopted.
Barriers such as inconsistent strategic direction, digital skills gaps and weak data infrastructure are shown to limit progress. These constraints mean that even well-designed technologies may fail to deliver benefits in practice.
The review also draws attention to the consequences of neglecting inclusion. Without adequate support, digital change can exacerbate existing disparities, particularly for people with limited access, skills or confidence.
Overall, the report reinforces that effective use of technology in care depends on system readiness as much as innovation. Aligning leadership, funding and user-centred design is critical if digital technologies are to improve care without widening inequities.
A qualitative study exploring experiences of living and caring in technology-rich supported living environments for people living with dementia.
Key messages
Policy implications
Gaps
Commentary
This study provides insight into how technology is woven into everyday life within supported living environments for people with dementia. Rather than being experienced as purely clinical tools, technologies such as wearables and mobile phones were often described as contributing to reassurance and a sense of security.
The findings also show that technology use is relational. Tenants’ ability to benefit depended on the support of both informal and formal carers, alongside opportunities to build digital confidence. Where this support was available, technology was more likely to be used in ways that aligned with residents’ preferences.
At the same time, the study highlights ethical tensions. Monitoring and assistive technologies raised questions about privacy, consent and autonomy, particularly as cognitive capacity changes over time. These concerns highlight the importance of clear governance and ongoing dialogue with tenants and carers.
Overall, the research suggests that technology can enhance supported living when it is thoughtfully integrated into care models. Ensuring that use remains person-centred, ethically grounded and supported over time is central to avoiding harm and enabling technology to contribute positively to dementia care.
