Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This analysis argues that the use of technology in care often falls short when digital services are designed without the active involvement of the communities they aim to serve. It highlights how exclusion can be embedded through design choices that assume access, confidence and trust.

In terms of care equity, the emphasis on ‘margins-first’ co-design is significant. By centring people most at risk of exclusion, digital services are more likely to address structural barriers rather than reproduce them.

The report reframes success in digital health away from simple uptake metrics. Confidence, trust and perceived usefulness are presented as equally important indicators of whether technology supports equitable access to care.

Overall, the analysis reinforces that inclusive digital health requires cultural and organisational change, not just better technology. Without genuine community involvement and power-sharing, digital transformation risks widening inequalities rather than reducing them.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This study shows how the digitalisation of social care reshapes everyday caring work for older unpaid carers. While digital tools were sometimes seen as useful, many carers described a loss of choice as non-digital routes were reduced or removed.

Affordability and skills gaps emerged as central barriers. For carers already managing significant responsibilities, the need to pay for devices or data and to develop digital confidence added pressure rather than relief. These constraints meant that digital systems often worked better for those with existing resources, leaving others struggling to engage.

The findings also highlight the importance of how digital change is implemented. Where carers were not involved in design decisions, digital services were more likely to feel imposed and poorly aligned with real-world caring contexts. In contrast, co-produced approaches were seen as more responsive and respectful of carers’ needs.

Overall, the study illustrates that digital social care can either support or undermine access depending on the choices made around funding, design and delivery. Retaining offline options and providing practical support for connectivity and skills are not transitional measures, but essential conditions for fair and workable digital care.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This paper highlights both the promise and the uncertainty surrounding digital technologies in mental health care. While new tools offer opportunities to enhance data sharing and clinical insight, their success depends heavily on alignment with service users’ needs and experiences.

A recurring theme is the importance of co-production. Digital tools designed without meaningful involvement of people living with mental health conditions risk being poorly adopted or misaligned with real-world care. This is particularly relevant in secondary care, where needs are often complex and long term.

At the same time, the review points to a thin evidence base. Small studies and short follow-up periods make it difficult to judge whether digital interventions improve outcomes or simply add complexity to already stretched services.

Overall, the paper suggests that digital innovation in secondary mental health care should prioritise learning and evaluation over rapid scale-up. Careful design, inclusive involvement and longer-term evidence are needed if technology is to strengthen care without introducing new forms of exclusion or risk.

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 highlighted

Commentary

This review examines how technology is positioned as a potential response to long-standing challenges in adult social care, including population ageing, workforce pressures and increasing demand for care. It highlights the growing interest among commissioners in using digital and mainstream consumer technologies as part of technology-enabled care services.

However, the paper emphasises that this shift is occurring alongside a major infrastructure change: the transition from analogue telephone systems to digital networks. Many existing telecare devices rely on analogue connections, meaning they must be replaced or adapted to function in digital environments. This transition introduces practical and safety challenges, particularly if systems are not upgraded in time or if connectivity is unreliable.

The review also highlights regulatory and ethical considerations associated with the use of mainstream technologies. Devices such as smart speakers are not designed as social alarm systems and therefore do not follow the same safety standards or fail-safe protocols. At the same time, concerns around data privacy, security and informed consent arise when such devices collect and process personal information.

In relation to care equity, the paper identifies the digital divide as a major concern for technology-enabled care. Differences in broadband availability, mobile connectivity, income and digital literacy mean that some communities may not be able to benefit from digital care technologies. If technology becomes a central mechanism for delivering services, these disparities could reinforce existing inequities in access to support.

Overall, the paper argues that the adoption of technology in adult social care should be guided by robust evidence and user-centred commissioning. Rather than assuming that digital innovation will automatically improve care, policymakers and commissioners must consider infrastructure, regulation, safety and user experience when designing technology-enabled services.

Key messages

Policy implications

Gaps

Commentary
This review provides a system-level view of why digital transformation in health and social care often falls short of its potential. Rather than focusing solely on technology, it highlights the importance of leadership, culture and investment in shaping how digital tools are adopted.

Barriers such as inconsistent strategic direction, digital skills gaps and weak data infrastructure are shown to limit progress. These constraints mean that even well-designed technologies may fail to deliver benefits in practice.

The review also draws attention to the consequences of neglecting inclusion. Without adequate support, digital change can exacerbate existing disparities, particularly for people with limited access, skills or confidence.

Overall, the report reinforces that effective use of technology in care depends on system readiness as much as innovation. Aligning leadership, funding and user-centred design is critical if digital technologies are to improve care without widening inequities.