OBJECTIVE: To examine activity and participation, quality of life, and user satisfaction outcomes of environmental control systems (ECSs) and smart home technology (SHT) interventions for persons with impairments. METHOD: A systematic review. Seventeen databases, three conference proceedings, and two journals were searched without language or study design restrictions covering the period January 1993 - June 2009. Reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality independently. RESULT: Of 1739 studies identified, five effect studies and six descriptive studies were included. One study was on SHT and the remainder on ECS; functionalities were overlapping. The studies varied in most aspects, and no synthesis could be drawn. However, ECS/SHT tended to increase study participants' independence, instrumental activities of daily living, socialising, and quality of life. Two studies showed high user satisfaction. The level of evidence was regarded as low, mainly due to small study sizes, lacking confounder control, and a majority of descriptive studies. CONCLUSION: Due to few and small studies and study diversity, it was not possible to determine whether ECS/SHT have positive outcomes for persons with impairment, even though the technologies seem to be promising. High quality outcomes studies such as randomised controlled trials, when feasible, and large longitudinal multi-centre studies are required.
OBJECTIVE: To examine activity and participation, quality of life, and user satisfaction outcomes of environmental control systems (ECSs) and smart home technology (SHT) interventions for persons with impairments. METHOD: A systematic review. Seventeen databases, three conference proceedings, and two journals were searched without language or study design restrictions covering the period January 1993 - June 2009. Reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality independently. RESULT: Of 1739 studies identified, five effect studies and six descriptive studies were included. One study was on SHT and the remainder on ECS; functionalities were overlapping. The studies varied in most aspects, and no synthesis could be drawn. However, ECS/SHT tended to increase study participants' independence, instrumental activities of daily living, socialising, and quality of life. Two studies showed high user satisfaction. The level of evidence was regarded as low, mainly due to small study sizes, lacking confounder control, and a majority of descriptive studies. CONCLUSION: Due to few and small studies and study diversity, it was not possible to determine whether ECS/SHT have positive outcomes for persons with impairment, even though the technologies seem to be promising. High quality outcomes studies such as randomised controlled trials, when feasible, and large longitudinal multi-centre studies are required.
Authors: Emma M Smith; Maria Luisa Toro Hernandez; Ikenna D Ebuenyi; Elena V Syurina; Giulia Barbareschi; Krista L Best; Jamie Danemayer; Ben Oldfrey; Nuha Ibrahim; Catherine Holloway; Malcolm MacLachlan Journal: Int J Health Policy Manag Date: 2022-06-01
Authors: Chor Yin Lam; Paul Aarne Koljonen; Christopher Chun Hei Yip; Ivan Yuen Wang Su; Yong Hu; Yat Wa Wong; Kenneth Man Chee Cheung Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Trisha Greenhalgh; Sara Shaw; Joe Wherton; Gemma Hughes; Jenni Lynch; Christine A'Court; Sue Hinder; Nick Fahy; Emma Byrne; Alexander Finlayson; Tom Sorell; Rob Procter; Rob Stones Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Emma M Smith; Ikenna D Ebuenyi; Juba Kafumba; Monica Jamali-Phiri; Alister Munthali; Malcolm MacLachlan Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2022-12-31 Impact factor: 2.640