CONTEXT: Telecare and telehealth developments have recently attracted much attention in research and service development contexts, where their evaluation has predominantly concerned effectiveness and efficiency. Their social and ethical implications, in contrast, have received little scrutiny. OBJECTIVE: To develop an ethical framework for telecare systems based on analysis of observations of telecare-in-use and citizens' panel deliberations. DESIGN: Ethnographic study (observation, work shadowing), interviews, older citizens' panels and a participative conference. SETTING: Participants' homes, workplaces and familiar community venues in England, Spain, the Netherlands and Norway 2008-2011. RESULTS: Older respondents expressed concerns that telecare might be used to replace face-to-face/hands-on care to cut costs. Citizens' panels strongly advocated ethical and social questions being considered in tandem with technical and policy developments. Older people are too often excluded from telecare system design, and installation is often wrongly seen as a one-off event. Some systems enhance self-care by increasing self-awareness, while others shift agency away from the older person, introducing new forms of dependency. CONCLUSIONS: Telecare has care limitations; it is not a solution, but a shift in networks of relations and responsibilities. Telecare cannot be meaningfully evaluated as an entity, but rather in the situated relations people and technologies create together. Characteristics of ethical telecare include on-going user/carer engagement in decision making about systems: in-home system evolution with feedback opportunities built into implementation. System design should be horizontal, 'two-way'/interactive rather than vertical or 'one-way'. An ethical framework for telecare has been developed from these conclusions (Table 1).
CONTEXT: Telecare and telehealth developments have recently attracted much attention in research and service development contexts, where their evaluation has predominantly concerned effectiveness and efficiency. Their social and ethical implications, in contrast, have received little scrutiny. OBJECTIVE: To develop an ethical framework for telecare systems based on analysis of observations of telecare-in-use and citizens' panel deliberations. DESIGN: Ethnographic study (observation, work shadowing), interviews, older citizens' panels and a participative conference. SETTING:Participants' homes, workplaces and familiar community venues in England, Spain, the Netherlands and Norway 2008-2011. RESULTS: Older respondents expressed concerns that telecare might be used to replace face-to-face/hands-on care to cut costs. Citizens' panels strongly advocated ethical and social questions being considered in tandem with technical and policy developments. Older people are too often excluded from telecare system design, and installation is often wrongly seen as a one-off event. Some systems enhance self-care by increasing self-awareness, while others shift agency away from the older person, introducing new forms of dependency. CONCLUSIONS: Telecare has care limitations; it is not a solution, but a shift in networks of relations and responsibilities. Telecare cannot be meaningfully evaluated as an entity, but rather in the situated relations people and technologies create together. Characteristics of ethical telecare include on-going user/carer engagement in decision making about systems: in-home system evolution with feedback opportunities built into implementation. System design should be horizontal, 'two-way'/interactive rather than vertical or 'one-way'. An ethical framework for telecare has been developed from these conclusions (Table 1).
Authors: Gerry King; David J Heaney; David Boddy; Catherine A O'Donnell; Julia S Clark; Frances S Mair Journal: Health Expect Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Adam Steventon; Martin Bardsley; John Billings; Jennifer Dixon; Helen Doll; Shashi Hirani; Martin Cartwright; Lorna Rixon; Martin Knapp; Catherine Henderson; Anne Rogers; Ray Fitzpatrick; Jane Hendy; Stanton Newman Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-06-21
Authors: Rebecca Gathercole; Rosie Bradley; Emma Harper; Lucy Davies; Lynn Pank; Natalie Lam; Anna Davies; Emma Talbot; Emma Hooper; Rachel Winson; Bethany Scutt; Victoria Ordonez Montano; Samantha Nunn; Grace Lavelle; Matthew Lariviere; Shashivadan Hirani; Stefano Brini; Andrew Bateman; Peter Bentham; Alistair Burns; Barbara Dunk; Kirsty Forsyth; Chris Fox; Catherine Henderson; Martin Knapp; Iracema Leroi; Stanton Newman; John O'Brien; Fiona Poland; John Woolham; Richard Gray; Robert Howard Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Josephine Gibson; Elizabeth Lightbody; Alison McLoughlin; Joanna McAdam; Alison Gibson; Elaine Day; Jane Fitzgerald; Carl May; Chris Price; Hedley Emsley; Gary A Ford; Caroline Watkins Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Trisha Greenhalgh; Rob Procter; Joe Wherton; Paul Sugarhood; Sue Hinder; Mark Rouncefield Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 8.775
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