Barriers and facilitators influencing implementation of care technology for people with intellectual disabilities: A cross-sectional study among care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Implementation issues often hinder reaching the potential of care technology to improve daily lives of people with intellectual disabilities. We investigated barriers to and facilitators of implementing different technology modalities (app/social robot/sensor/domotics) in long-term care. METHOD: Care professionals (N = 83) from 12 Dutch disability care organisations completed a customised measurement instrument for determinants of innovations (MIDI) questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of 27 determinants, 20 were identified as facilitators and 16 as barriers. We highlight common barriers: few colleagues who work with the technology; no (awareness of) formal ratification of technology use; no arrangements regarding turnover of staff using the technology; unsettling organisational changes; technological defects and limited IT preconditions. CONCLUSIONS: The results, which could be combined and compared across study sites, provide insight into which implementation determinants were already well addressed, and where there is ground to gain when implementing care technology in disability care organisations.

Sleep-wake monitoring of people with intellectual disability: Examining the agreement of EMFIT QS and actigraphy.

BACKGROUND: Gaining insight into sleep-wake patterns of persons with intellectual disabilities is commonly done using wrist actigraphy. For some people, contactless alternatives are needed. This study compares a contactless bed sensor with wrist actigraphy to monitor sleep-wake patterns of people with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities. METHOD: Data were collected with EMFIT QS (activity and presence) and MotionWatch 8/Actiwatch 2 (activity, ambient light, and event marker/sleep diary) for 14 nights in 13 adults with moderate-profound intellectual disabilities residing in intramural care. RESULTS: In a care-as-usual setting, EMFIT QS and actigraphy assessment show little agreement on sleep-wake variables. CONCLUSION: Currently, EMFIT QS should not be considered an alternative to wrist actigraphy for sleep-wake monitoring. Further research is needed into assessing sleep-wake variables using (contactless) technological devices and how the data should be interpreted within the care context to achieve reliable and valid information on sleep-wake patterns of people with intellectual disabilities.