↓ Skip to main content

What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
107 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
443 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0279-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trisha Greenhalgh, Rob Procter, Joe Wherton, Paul Sugarhood, Sue Hinder, Mark Rouncefield

Abstract

We sought to define quality in telehealth and telecare with the aim of improving the proportion of patients who receive appropriate, acceptable and workable technologies and services to support them living with illness or disability. This was a three-phase study: (1) interviews with seven technology suppliers and 14 service providers, (2) ethnographic case studies of 40 people, 60 to 98 years old, with multi-morbidity and assisted living needs and (3) 10 co-design workshops. In phase 1, we explored barriers to uptake of telehealth and telecare. In phase 2, we used ethnographic methods to build a detailed picture of participants' lives, illness experiences and technology use. In phase 3, we brought users and their carers together with suppliers and providers to derive quality principles for assistive technology products and services. Interviews identified practical, material and organisational barriers to smooth introduction and continued support of assistive technologies. The experience of multi-morbidity was characterised by multiple, mutually reinforcing and inexorably worsening impairments, producing diverse and unique care challenges. Participants and their carers managed these pragmatically, obtaining technologies and adapting the home. Installed technologies were rarely fit for purpose. Support services for technologies made high (and sometimes oppressive) demands on users. Six principles emerged from the workshops. Quality telehealth or telecare is 1) ANCHORED in a shared understanding of what matters to the user; 2) REALISTIC about the natural history of illness; 3) CO-CREATIVE, evolving and adapting solutions with users; 4) HUMAN, supported through interpersonal relationships and social networks; 5) INTEGRATED, through attention to mutual awareness and knowledge sharing; 6) EVALUATED to drive system learning. Technological advances are important, but must be underpinned by industry and service providers following a user-centred approach to design and delivery. For the ARCHIE principles to be realised, the sector requires: (1) a shift in focus from product ('assistive technologies') to performance ('supporting technologies-in-use'); (2) a shift in the commissioning model from standardised to personalised home care contracts; and (3) a shift in the design model from 'walled garden', branded products to inter-operable components that can be combined and used flexibly across devices and platforms. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0305-8 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 107 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 443 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 426 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 15%
Researcher 64 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 13%
Student > Bachelor 32 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 6%
Other 90 20%
Unknown 107 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 12%
Social Sciences 40 9%
Psychology 28 6%
Computer Science 24 5%
Other 101 23%
Unknown 121 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2022.
All research outputs
#605,724
of 25,506,250 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#444
of 4,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,060
of 280,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#16
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,506,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.