Collaboration applications for mixed home care — A systematic review of evaluations and outcomes. (20th August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Renyi, Madeleine; Lindwedel-Reime, Ulrike; Blattert, Lisa; Teuteberg, Frank; Kunze, Christophe
• Is Part Of: International journal of technology assessment in health care. Volume 36:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 395
• Page End: 403
• Publication Date: 2020-08-20
• Subjects: Intersectoral collaboration, -- Home care, -- Elderly care, -- Evaluation studies, -- Systematic review; Medical technology -- Periodicals; Technology assessment -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462320000458
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4623

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Mixed home care, in which informal and professional actors work closely together, contributes significantly to ensuring home care up to old age. In this context, collaboration applications can considerably enhance the interactions among caregivers. However, although much research is conducted on need and requirement analyses of such applications, little is known about their introduction and use in care models. The purpose of this contribution is to identify studies that evaluate collaboration applications for mixed home care and compare their outcomes. Methods: To identify literature on mixed home care collaboration applications (mHCA) and their evaluation, a systematic literature review was conducted in five bibliographic databases covering the years 2008 through 2019. The results were supplemented by a search in the meta-database Google Scholar. The evaluation approaches of the studies were analyzed and results compared by using the NASSS framework. Finally, a context concretized model was derived which summarizes interrelations. Results: Twelve qualitative studies evaluating eleven applications could be identified. They report on increased competency in self-management, psychological relatedness, involvement, and understanding. However, most studies conclude that large scale platform tests are still needed to prove significant changes in care processes, communication, or organization. Conclusion: Among other things, their implementation is rather difficult due to the specifics of the target group. To enable a more targeted and successful implementation, it might be helpful to classify care networks beforehand and assess their communication behavior and needs. To prove the added value of mHCAs standardized assessment tools should be used.