Collaboration in Mixed Homecare – A Study of Care Actors’ Acceptance Towards Supportive Groupware

  • Madeleine RenyiEmail author
  • Melanie Rosner
  • Frank Teuteberg
  • Christophe Kunze
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 354)


As more and more people reach high age the need for care, especially at home, rises. Caring involves the coordination of a wide variety of actors. Modern information and communication technologies (ICT) may improve care coordination and thus relieve all actors involved in outpatient care.

This paper presents the results of a study (n = 108), that aimed to find out about the attitude of care actors towards digital care coordination tools in Germany. The survey contained questions regarding the care situation, expectations, technology commitment, barriers and need for assistance.

The data were primarily evaluated according to the subgroups informal caregivers and professional actors. The study showed a lack of target group oriented provision and support of groupware. A mere provision of the technology does not lead to the desired acceptance of the offer because none of the actor groups sees the initiating role of technology use on their side. Personal instruction and support are in demand in both user groups, regardless of technology commitment. For the rather less technology-savvy informal caregivers, this can be explained through their rather tense care situations and the mostly rather high age and the associated restrictions. Professionals demand to learn the technology in order to integrate it as effectively as possible into their daily care routine.


Technology acceptance Groupware Adoption of innovation Mixed homecare Outpatient care 



We want to thank our participants for contributing their time. This work was supported by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration Baden-Württemberg.


  1. 1.
    Neubert, L., König, H.H., Brettschneider, C.: Seeking the balance between caregiving in dementia, family and employment: study protocol for a mixed methods study in Northern Germany. BMJ Open 8, 1–9 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bianchi, S.M.: A demographic perspective on family change. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 6, 35–44 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vannieuwenborg, F., Van der Auwermeulen, T., Van Ooteghem, J., Jacobs, A., Verbrugge, S., Colle, D.: Evaluating the economic impact of smart care platforms: qualitative and quantitative results of a case study. JMIR Med. Informatics 4, e33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Piau, A., Campo, E., Rumeau, P., Vellas, B., Nourhashemi, F.: Aging society and gerontechnology: a solution for an independent living? J. Nutr. Heal. Aging 18, 97–112 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peek, S.T.M., Wouters, E.J.M., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K.G., Boeije, H.R., Vrijhoef, H.J.M.: Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 83, 235–248 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobs, M., Van Tilburg, T., Groenewegen, P., Broese Van Groenou, M.: Linkages between informal and formal care-givers in home-care networks of frail older adults. Ageing Soc. 36, 1604–1624 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bäuerle, D., Scherzer, U.: Zukunft Quartier – Lebensräume zum Älterwerden. Themenheft 1: Hilfe-Mix – Ältere Menschen in Balance zwischen Selbsthilfe und (professioneller) Unterstützung, Netzwerk Soziales Neu Gestalten (SONG) (2009).
  8. 8.
    Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H.: Design of a virtual community infrastructure for elderly care. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M. (ed.) PRO-VE 2002. ITIFIP, vol. 85, pp. 439–450. Springer, Boston, MA (2002). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bratteteig, T., Wagner, I.: Moving healthcare to the home: the work to make homecare work. In: Bertelsen, O., Ciolfi, L., Grasso, M., Papadopoulos, G. (eds.) ECSCW 2013: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 21–25 September 2013, Paphos, Cyprus, pp. 143–162. Springer, London (2013). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bosch, L.B.J., Kanis, M.: Design opportunities for supporting informal caregivers. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA 2016, pp. 2790–2797. ACM Press, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Renyi, M., Teuteberg, F., Kunze, C.: ICT-based support for the collaboration of formal and informal caregivers – a user-centered design study. In: Abramowicz, W., Paschke, A. (eds.) BIS 2018. LNBIP, vol. 320, pp. 400–411. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bossen, C., Christensen, L.R., Grönvall, E., Vestergaard, L.S.: CareCoor: augmenting the coordination of cooperative home care work. Int. J. Med. Inform. 82, e189–e199 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Span, M., et al.: An interactive web tool for facilitating shared decision-making in dementia-care networks: a field study. Front. Aging Neurosci. 7, 1–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Breskovic, I., de Carvalho, A.F.P., Schinkinger, S., Tellioglu, H.: Social awareness support for meeting informal carers’ needs: early development in TOPIC. In: Bertelsen, O.W., Ciolfi, L., Grasso., M.A., Papadopoulos, G.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the ECSCW 2013, Paphos, vol. 2, pp. 3–8 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boessen, A.B.C.G., Verwey, R., Duymelinck, S., van Rossum, E.: An online platform to support the network of caregivers of people with dementia. J. Aging Res. (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buboltz-Lutz, E., Kricheldorff, C.: Freiwilliges Engagement im Pflegemix - Neue Impulse. Lambertus-Verlag, Freiburg (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Görres, S., Seibert, K., Stiefler, S.: Perspektiven zum pflegerischen Versorgungsmix. In: Pflege-Report 2016, pp. 3–14. Schattauer GmbH, Stuttgart (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C.: A groupware design framework for loosely coupled workgroups. In: Gellersen, H., Schmidt, K., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Mackay, W. (eds.) ECSCW 2005, pp. 65–82. Springer, Dordrecht (2005). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmidt, K., Bannon, L.: Taking CSCW seriously. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 1, 7–40 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tang, C., Carpendale, S.: An observational study on information flow during nurses’ shift change. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2007, p. 219. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou, X., Ackerman, M., Zheng, K.: Doctors and psychosocial information: records and reuse in inpatient care. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2010, pp. 1767–1776 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petrakou, A.: Integrated care in the daily work: coordination beyond organisational boundaries. Int. J. Integr. Care. 9, e87 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abou Amsha, K., Lewkowicz, M.: Shifting patterns in home care work: supporting collaboration among self-employed care actors. In: De Angeli, A., Bannon, L., Marti, P., Bordin, S. (eds.) COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 23–27 May 2016, Trento, Italy, pp. 139–154. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robertson, T., Li, J., O’Hara, K., Hansen, S.: Collaboration within different settings: a study of co-located and distributed multidisciplinary medical team meetings. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 19, 483–513 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mynatt, E.D., Rowan, J., Craighill, S., Jacobs, A.: Digital family portraits: supporting peace of mind for extended family members. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2001, pp. 333–340. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rowan, J., Mynatt, E.D.: Digital family portrait field trial: support for aging in place. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2005, p. 521. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Christensen, L.R., Grönvall, E.: Challenges and opportunities for collaborative technologies for home care work. In: Bødker, S., Bouvin, N.O., Wulf, V., Ciolfi, L., Lutters, W. (eds.) ECSCW 2011: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 24–28 September 2011, Aarhus Denmark, pp. 61–80. Springer, London (2011). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C.: Supporting collaboration in multidisciplinary home care teams. In: Proceedings of the AMIA 2002, pp. 617–621 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pinelle, D., Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S.: Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 10(4), 281–311 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heart, T., Kalderon, E.: Older adults: are they ready to adopt health-related ICT? Int. J. Med. Inform. 82, e209–e231 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grol, R., Wensing, M.: What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med. J. Aust. 180, S57–S60 (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bleses, P., et al.: Zwischenbericht des Verbundprojekts KoLeGe. Verbundprojekt KoLeGe, Bremen (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Greenhalgh, T., et al.: Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J. Med. Internet Res. 19, e367 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khatun, F., Palas, J.U., Ray, P.K.: Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model to analyze cloud-based mHealth service for primary care. Digit. Med. 3, 69–75 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoque, R., Sorwar, G.: Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: an extension of the UTAUT model. Int. J. Med. Inform. 101, 75–84 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cimperman, M., Makovec Brenčič, M., Trkman, P.: Analyzing older users’ home telehealth services acceptance behavior-applying an Extended UTAUT model. Int. J. Med. Inform. 90, 22–31 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grönvall, E., Lundberg, S.: On challenges designing the home as a place for care. In: Holzinger, A., Ziefle, M., Röcker, C. (eds.) Pervasive Health. HIS, pp. 19–45. Springer, London (2014). Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schorch, M., Wan, L., Randall, D.W., Wulf, V.: Designing for those who are overlooked - insider perspectives on care practices and cooperative work of elderly informal caregivers. In: Proceedings of the CSCW 2016, pp. 785–797. ACM Press, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eschler, J., et al.: Shared calendars for home health management. In: Proceedings of the CSCW 2015, pp. 1277–1288 (2015)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bødker, S., Grönvall, E.: Calendars: time coordination and overview in families and beyond. In: Bertelsen, O., Ciolfi, L., Grasso, M., Papadopoulos, G. (eds.) ECSCW 2013: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 21–25 September 2013, Paphos, Cyprus, pp. 63–81. Springer, London (2013). Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dwivedi, Y.K., Shareef, M., Simintiras, A., Lal, B., Weerakkody, V.J.: A generalised adoption model for services: a cross-country comparison of mobile health (m-health). Gov. Inf. Q. 33, 174–187 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Neyer, F.J., Felber, J., Gebhardt, C.: Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft. Diagnostica 58, 87–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Porst, R.: Pretests zur Evaluation des Fragebogen(entwurf)s. In: Fragebogen. SS, pp. 189–205. Springer, Wiesbaden (2014). Scholar
  46. 46.
    Klein, B.: Neue Technologien und soziale Innovationen im Sozial- und Gesundheitswesen. In: Soziale Innovation, pp. 271–296. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Eggert, S., Sulmann, D., Teubner, D.C.: ZQP-Befragung: Einstellung der Bevölkerung zu digitaler Unterstützung in der Pflege. ZQP Stiftung, Berlin (2018)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ponnala, S., Weiler, D.T., Gilmore-Bykovskiy, A., Block, L., Kind, A.J., Werner, N.E.: Towards an understanding of informal care networks of persons with dementia: perceptions of primary caregivers. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 62(1), 561–562 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Peek, S.T.M., et al.: Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology 62, 226–237 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fachinger, U.: Technikeinsatz bei Pflegebedürftigkeit. In: Jacobs, K., Kuhlmey, A., Greß, S., Schwinger, A., Klauber, J. (eds.) Pflege-Report 2017: Schwerpunkt: Die Versorgung der Pflegebedürftigen, pp. 83–88. Schattauer, Stuttgart (2017)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    van Wieringen, M., Broese van Groenou, M.I., Groenewegen, P.: Impact of home care management on the involvement of informal caregivers by formal caregivers. Home Health Care Serv. Q. 34, 67–84 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jeon, E., Park, H.: Factors affecting acceptance of smartphone application for management of obesity. Heal. Informatics Res. 21, 74–82 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Silow-Caroll, S., Smith, B.: Clinical management apps: creating partnerships between providers and patients. Commonw. Fund. 30, 1–10 (2013)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wetzstein, M., Rommel, A., Lange, C.: Pflegende Angehörige – Deutschlands größter Pflegedienst. GBE kompakt. 6 (2015)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Statistisches Bundesamt: Pflegestatistik 2015 - Pflege im Rahmen der Pflegeversicherung Deutschlandergebnisse., Wiesbaden (2017)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Willard, S., Cremers, G., Man, Y.P., Van Rossum, E., Spreeuwenberg, M., De Witte, L.: Development and testing of an online community care platform for frail older adults in the Netherlands: a user-centred design. BMC Geriatr. 18, 1–9 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madeleine Renyi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Melanie Rosner
    • 1
  • Frank Teuteberg
    • 2
  • Christophe Kunze
    • 1
  1. 1.Furtwangen UniversityFurtwangenGermany
  2. 2.School of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Accounting and Information SystemsUniversity OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations