Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary

This paper reframes the use of technology in care by focusing on what assistive technology enables people to do and be, rather than on the devices themselves. By applying a capability-based approach, it highlights outcomes such as independence, safety and social participation that are often overlooked in standard evaluations.

From a care equity perspective, this shift is important. Measuring success through device provision alone risks masking unequal experiences, where some users are unable to benefit due to affordability, usability or lack of training.

The findings suggest that person-centred evaluation could support more equitable commissioning and service design. Understanding which capabilities are enhanced, and for whom, may help identify where assistive technology is failing to meet needs.

However, the study also highlights systemic limitations. Without standardised capability measures embedded in routine practice, these outcomes remain difficult to track or compare. Addressing this gap is essential if assistive technology is to contribute meaningfully to equitable care rather than reinforcing existing barriers.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study highlights the complex role of assistive technology in home-based dementia care. Carers often assemble multiple technologies to manage safety and daily support, reflecting both the potential value and the burden of technology use.

From a care equity perspective, information and affordability barriers are central. Carers with less access to advice or financial resources may struggle to identify suitable technologies or sustain their use as needs evolve.

The frequent abandonment of technologies underscores the importance of adaptability. Static solutions are poorly suited to the progressive nature of dementia, placing additional emotional and practical strain on carers.

Overall, the findings reinforce that the use of technology in care must be supported by clear information, ongoing advice and flexible provision. Without this, assistive technology risks increasing burden rather than supporting carers and the people they care for.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This NIHR trial provides some of the strongest evidence on the limits of telecare effectiveness in dementia care. By comparing a comprehensive telecare package with a basic offer, it challenges assumptions that more technology necessarily leads to better outcomes.

From a care equity standpoint, the findings highlight risks in technology-led approaches that do not account for individual context. Standardised packages may fail to support people with dementia whose needs, capabilities and environments vary widely.

The results align with qualitative evidence showing that personalisation, support and fit with daily life are critical to successful technology use. Without these elements, telecare may add complexity without delivering meaningful benefit.

Overall, the study highlights that the use of technology in care must be grounded in person-centred assessment and ongoing support. Technology alone is insufficient to improve outcomes, and poorly matched interventions risk diverting resources from more effective forms of care.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study provides rich insight into how assistive technology is used in real-world dementia care. Rather than being passively adopted, technologies are actively adapted, modified or abandoned depending on how well they fit with everyday routines and relationships.

From a care equity viewpoint, the findings challenge assumptions that technology alone can provide support. Without tailoring, ongoing support and responsiveness to changing needs, assistive technologies may fail to deliver intended benefits and can even create new burdens.

The concept of ‘bricolage’ highlights the work done by carers to make technologies usable. This ‘invisible work’ is rarely recognised in service design or commissioning, yet it is central to whether technology supports or disrupts care.

Overall, the study stresses that the use of technology in care must be grounded in lived experience. Personalisation, flexibility and longitudinal support are essential if assistive technology is to support people with dementia and their carers equitably and sustainably.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
The State of Caring 2025 report highlights the increasing importance of digital information and technology in supporting unpaid carers. Online platforms are widely used to access guidance on benefits, services and caring responsibilities. This reflects broader shifts in health and social care systems, where information and service navigation increasingly take place through digital channels.

However, the report also suggests that digital access alone cannot address the practical and emotional challenges carers face. Technology may support information access, but carers continue to rely on professional advice, community services and peer support to manage complex caring responsibilities.

The findings also raise important issues relating to care equity. When support systems rely heavily on digital access, carers who lack reliable internet access, digital skills or confidence may struggle to obtain the information and assistance they need. This can create uneven access to support, particularly for older carers or those experiencing financial disadvantage.

Overall, the report reinforces the role of digital information as an important component of support for carers, while highlighting the need for inclusive design and multiple routes to assistance to ensure carers are not excluded from essential services.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study provides insight into how technology is woven into everyday life within supported living environments for people with dementia. Rather than being experienced as purely clinical tools, technologies such as wearables and mobile phones were often described as contributing to reassurance and a sense of security.

The findings also show that technology use is relational. Tenants’ ability to benefit depended on the support of both informal and formal carers, alongside opportunities to build digital confidence. Where this support was available, technology was more likely to be used in ways that aligned with residents’ preferences.

At the same time, the study highlights ethical tensions. Monitoring and assistive technologies raised questions about privacy, consent and autonomy, particularly as cognitive capacity changes over time. These concerns highlight the importance of clear governance and ongoing dialogue with tenants and carers.

Overall, the research suggests that technology can enhance supported living when it is thoughtfully integrated into care models. Ensuring that use remains person-centred, ethically grounded and supported over time is central to avoiding harm and enabling technology to contribute positively to dementia care.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This case study examines how technology-enabled care services are commissioned and implemented within a regional health and social care system. While TECS are frequently promoted as tools that support prevention and independence, the study highlights how their effectiveness depends heavily on local financial and organisational conditions.

Local authority funding pressures emerge as a major constraint. Budget reductions limit the ability of councils and care systems to invest in new technologies, redesign services or scale promising initiatives. As a result, the potential benefits of TECS are often difficult to realise in practice.

The research also highlights structural challenges around infrastructure and system integration. Where digital systems, care pathways or organisational responsibilities are poorly aligned, technology-enabled services may remain peripheral rather than embedded within everyday care delivery.

From a care equity perspective, these findings raise questions about how technological innovation is distributed across the care system. If the implementation of TECS depends heavily on local financial capacity, areas facing greater fiscal pressure may have fewer opportunities to develop or sustain technology-enabled services. This could contribute to uneven access to preventative tools that help people remain independent at home.

The study therefore suggests that the benefits of technology-enabled care cannot be separated from wider system conditions. Ensuring that TECS support equitable access to care may require stable funding, coordinated commissioning across health and social care, and clearer evaluation of how these services improve outcomes for different populations.