Utility of Smart Home Technology Within OT Practice

The purpose of this study was to explore occupational therapist practitioners' (OTPs) utility of smart home technology (SHT) in their practice, as well as supports and barriers to using smart home technology within practice. Research questions included: (1) What relationships exist (if any) between factors identified and use of SHT?; (2) What relationships exist (if any) between factors identified and perceived effectiveness with SHT? Smart home technology can arguably fall into the category of assistive technologies (Cook & Polgar, 2014) and therefore can be used by OTPs for therapeutic interventions. There have been calls to action for OTPs to be using SHT (Waite, 2015) and studies that look at the feasibility of OTPs using SHT to assist client's to live more independent and meaningful lives (Giger & Markward, 2011; Liu, 2018). Despite this, little research has been done investigating OTPs actual use of SHT and the barriers and supports that OTPs experience influencing their use or non-use of SHT. A quantitative, descriptive research design utilizing survey methodology was used. Recruitment was conducted through purposive and convenience sampling with inclusion criteria that participants must be an OT or OTA. A 30-question Qualtrics survey was distributed to participants via social media and internet pages. Quantitative data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 26. Spearman rho correlations were conducted to explore relationships between factors. A total of 75 surveys were returned, both by occupational therapists (85%) and occupational therapy assistants (15%). Most respondents practice in home health (33%, n = 25) and outpatient settings (31%, n = 23). Overall, 63% of respondents reported not currently using SHT in practice (n = 47). When considering availability, respondents stated that they do not have time (57%, n = 43) or access (36%, n = 22) to incorporate SHT. Lastly, available funding and support for incorporating SHT into practice are limited, with respondents stating they do not have employer supported (85%, n = 52) or other funding (52%, n = 31). Most non-financial support comes from co-workers (n = 16) and family (n = 8). Correlations were found between: level of comfort with utilizing SHT and perceived effectiveness when utilizing SHT; and received funding and use. Occupational therapy practitioners are more likely to use SHT in practice if they have support in a variety of forms, but especially from their co-workers. Interest is also linked to increased support, increased access to funding, and increased availability. However, interest was not the driving force for feeling effective when using SHT. It was found that comfort with SHT was the driving force for practitioners to perceive they were effective when using it as an intervention. The most substantial barriers to using SHT that were identified include: lack of funding sources, lack of education, and lack of availability to the devices. Now that this data has been collected, it is possible for the profession to move forward and address the barriers and in turn make them supports. The use of SHT as an intervention tool is an important consideration for OTPs as these technologies have so much to offer clients. The use of SHT is the way of the future and OTPs deserve a seat at the table to be able to enable their clients to live meaningful and independent lives.

References

Cook, A. M. & Polgar, J. M. (2014). Assistive technologies: Principles & practices (fourth edition). St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Mosby.

Giger, J. T., & Markward, M. (2011). The need to know caregiver perspectives toward using smart home technology. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 10(2), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1536710X.2011.571529

Liu, L. (2018). Occupational therapy in the fourth industrial revolution. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 85(4), 272-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417418815179

Waite, A. (2015). Using the OT brain to implement smart home technology. OT Practice, 20(16), 8-11.