| | Technology evaluation | Examples of evaluation results | Aspects of care |
| | Feasibility (3 studies) [54, 55, 71] | + It is feasible to identify relationship among some events that are difficult for the treatment team to observe without using IoT-based monitoring system [55] | Activities of daily living (ADL), sleeping, movement, tracking | | - Feeling uncomfortable while doing activities [71] | ADL | | - Long-term monitoring scenarios were undesirable [71] | ADL | | - Difficulty in performing some activities using IoT technologies such as retrieving objects or making a phone call [71] | ADL |
| | Usability (3 studies) [23, 48, 61] | + The caregivers usually indicate the usefulness of the system in the following cases:
(i) Tracking patients by location monitoring systems [48, 61]
(ii) Finding out which locations are dangerous for patients [48, 61]
(iii) Taking necessary measures for patients [23] | ADL, sleeping, agitation, memory, movement, tracking, fall, vital signs | | - Global positioning system (GPS), despite being available in a price range suitable for people at different levels, is not widely used in practice, except in clinical studies [23] | Tracking |
| | Acceptability (3 studies) [54, 55, 57] | + Given that collecting some patients’ data is not possible with current care methods such as distance traveled, routes within the care unit, time spent in each area, wandering, and waking up at night, this technology is acceptable by the medical team [55] | ADL, sleeping, movement, tracking | | + Daily activity monitoring system is acceptable for patients [57] | Diagnosis, ADL, sleeping | | + This technology is considered desirable by many users [54] | ADL, tracking, movement | | - 67% of the participants were willing to be evaluated by the sensor at the place of residence only for a limited time during the day (not for long duration) [54] | ADL, tracking, movement |
|
|
