Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study provides rich insight into how assistive technology is used in real-world dementia care. Rather than being passively adopted, technologies are actively adapted, modified or abandoned depending on how well they fit with everyday routines and relationships.

From a care equity viewpoint, the findings challenge assumptions that technology alone can provide support. Without tailoring, ongoing support and responsiveness to changing needs, assistive technologies may fail to deliver intended benefits and can even create new burdens.

The concept of ‘bricolage’ highlights the work done by carers to make technologies usable. This ‘invisible work’ is rarely recognised in service design or commissioning, yet it is central to whether technology supports or disrupts care.

Overall, the study stresses that the use of technology in care must be grounded in lived experience. Personalisation, flexibility and longitudinal support are essential if assistive technology is to support people with dementia and their carers equitably and sustainably.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study demonstrates how targeted digital inclusion support can improve access and engagement for mental health service users who are otherwise excluded from digital care. By combining devices, connectivity and one-to-one support, the intervention addressed multiple barriers simultaneously.

From a care equity perspective, the findings highlight that digital exclusion is not simply a technical issue but one linked to confidence, skills and control. Supporting people to use technology on their own terms can enhance autonomy and participation in care.

The emphasis on personalised support is particularly important. Standardised digital roll-outs are unlikely to meet the needs of people facing multiple disadvantages, whereas tailored approaches may help reduce inequities in access to mental health services.

However, the study also points to evidence gaps. Without data on long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness and scalability, it remains unclear how such programmes can be embedded sustainably across systems. Even so, the findings provide useful practice-based evidence for designing more inclusive uses of technology in care.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This framework provides a clear policy position on the use of technology in care, emphasising that digital transformation must not replace non-digital access routes. It recognises digital exclusion as a structural issue rather than an individual failing.

The focus on proactive identification of excluded groups is significant in terms of achieving care equity. Rather than relying on uptake data, the framework encourages services to understand who is missing and why.

The emphasis on partnership working reflects an understanding that digital inclusion cannot be delivered by the NHS alone. Local authorities, voluntary organisations and community groups play a central role in supporting access, skills and trust.

However, as a guidance document, the framework stops short of providing evidence on impact. Its contribution lies in setting expectations and principles. Ensuring these are translated into practice, and evaluated for their effect on inequalities, remains a key challenge for the NHS.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This programme shows how digital infrastructure can shape access to technology-enabled care. By focusing on connectivity in a disadvantaged urban area, the testbed addressed a foundational barrier that often sits outside traditional health and social care planning.

The reported reductions in GP visits and telecare costs suggest that connectivity can support more efficient use of services. However, these outcomes appear closely tied to local context, programme design and the availability of complementary services.

Rather than treating digital access as an individual responsibility, the testbed illustrates the effects of structural investment. Providing reliable, low-cost connectivity created the conditions for people to engage with connected care who might otherwise have been excluded.

Overall, the Liverpool 5G testbed highlights the role of infrastructure as an enabler of equitable technology use in care. Its findings point to the importance of aligning connectivity investment with service delivery, while also underlining the need for stronger evaluation to understand wider applicability.

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.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study provides insight into how digital primary care is experienced by older adults from minoritised ethnic backgrounds. While some participants were able to engage with digital systems, many described practical and emotional barriers linked to language, confidence and system design.

The findings show that digitalisation can increase existing pressures rather than ease access. Stress, reduced trust and a sense of being marginalised were common where digital routes replaced familiar ways of contacting services. Preferences for face-to-face or video consultations reflected a desire for clarity, reassurance and human connection.

Racial discrimination emerged as an important contextual factor. Past experiences influenced how participants interpreted digital change and whether they felt services were designed with them in mind. This highlights how technology interacts with wider patterns of exclusion rather than operating in isolation.

Overall, the study suggests that inclusive digital care requires more than technical solutions. Maintaining non-digital options, improving language support and addressing experiences of discrimination are central to ensuring that digital transformation does not widen gaps in access for older adults from minoritised communities.

Key messages

Policy implications

Commentary
This paper draws attention to the way technology is positioned within English care policy, not through outcomes or implementation, but through language. By framing technology as a solution to the challenges of ageing and care, policy discourse promotes ideas of independence, efficiency and innovation as dominant goals.

These narratives matter because they shape how problems and solutions are understood. When technology is consistently presented as enabling older people to live independently, the relational, social and material aspects of care risk being sidelined. The analysis suggests that care is often depicted as something that can be optimised or substituted, rather than supported.

From a care equity perspective, the discourse identified in this study raises concerns about who is implicitly included or excluded. Policy language frequently assumes access to technology, digital confidence and supportive environments. This can obscure the realities faced by people with limited resources, lower digital literacy, cognitive impairment or unstable support networks. When these assumptions go unchallenged, inequities in access to care can become normalised rather than addressed.

The study also highlights how equity considerations are rarely made explicit in policy narratives. By focusing on independence and innovation, less attention is given to structural barriers, unequal access to technology, or the additional support required by some groups if they are to benefit from digital care.

Overall, the paper demonstrates that equity in the use of technology in care is shaped not only by implementation, but by the stories policymakers tell about what technology is for and who it serves. Making care equity explicit within policy discourse is therefore a necessary step toward more inclusive and realistic digital care strategies.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This paper highlights that the use of technology in care brings distinct patient safety challenges, particularly in remote primary care consultations. While remote access can improve convenience, it can also reduce clinicians’ ability to assess subtle cues or conduct physical examinations.

In terms of care equity, these risks are not evenly distributed. Patients with communication difficulties, language barriers or complex needs may be more vulnerable to harm in remote settings, especially if digital consultations become routine.

The study highlights the importance of mitigation strategies such as clear safety-netting and the option of in-person review. These approaches recognise that remote care should be adaptive rather than uniform.

Overall, the findings reinforce the need for balanced digital strategies. The use of technology in care must carefully weigh safety and equity alongside access, ensuring that digital delivery enhances care without increasing risk for already underserved groups.

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.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This policy review provides historical context for how technology has developed within UK social care systems. Technologies such as telecare, monitoring devices and digital communication tools have been promoted as solutions to rising demand, workforce shortages and pressure on public finances. The report notes that many policies have framed technology as a means of enabling people to live independently at home for longer while potentially reducing service costs.

The analysis also shows that technology has been introduced within a broader transformation of the care system, including a shift towards community and home-based support and increasing reliance on digital infrastructure. However, implementation has often been fragmented, with central government supporting research and innovation while local authorities determine how technologies are adopted in practice.

From a social care equity perspective, the report highlights that technological change must be considered within the wider organisation of care systems. Access to reliable internet infrastructure, digital services and appropriate support can vary across regions and populations. If digital solutions are introduced without adequate infrastructure, evaluation and support, they may reinforce existing disparities in access to care.

Overall, the review argues that technology alone cannot resolve structural challenges in social care. Instead, effective use of digital tools requires a holistic approach that considers workforce roles, infrastructure, regulation and the broader organisation of care services.

Key statistics

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This report provides an economic assessment of digital inclusion in the UK, focusing on the potential benefits of improving digital skills across the population. The analysis frames digital inclusion as a key component of economic participation, with implications for productivity, employment and the use of public services.

The findings suggest that improving digital skills could also generate savings for the NHS, partly through increased use of online services and reduced demand for in-person appointments. This reflects the growing role of digital channels in accessing health information, services and administrative processes.

From a care equity perspective, the report highlights the risk that digitalisation of services may disadvantage people without access to digital skills, devices or connectivity. Older adults and individuals with lower digital literacy are projected to make up a significant proportion of those who remain digitally excluded in the future. Without targeted support, these groups may face increasing barriers to accessing health and social care services that are delivered or coordinated through digital systems.

Overall, the analysis reinforces the argument that digital inclusion should be treated as a core public infrastructure issue. Investments in digital skills, connectivity and support services may help reduce exclusion from digital health and care services while improving the efficiency of public service delivery.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
The State of Caring 2025 report highlights the increasing importance of digital information and technology in supporting unpaid carers. Online platforms are widely used to access guidance on benefits, services and caring responsibilities. This reflects broader shifts in health and social care systems, where information and service navigation increasingly take place through digital channels.

However, the report also suggests that digital access alone cannot address the practical and emotional challenges carers face. Technology may support information access, but carers continue to rely on professional advice, community services and peer support to manage complex caring responsibilities.

The findings also raise important issues relating to care equity. When support systems rely heavily on digital access, carers who lack reliable internet access, digital skills or confidence may struggle to obtain the information and assistance they need. This can create uneven access to support, particularly for older carers or those experiencing financial disadvantage.

Overall, the report reinforces the role of digital information as an important component of support for carers, while highlighting the need for inclusive design and multiple routes to assistance to ensure carers are not excluded from essential services.