%0 Journal Article
%@ 2561-7605
%I JMIR Publications
%V 8
%N 
%P e69107
%T Passive Remote Monitoring Technologies’ Influence on Home Care Clients’ Ability to Stay Home: Multiprovincial Randomized Controlled Trial
%A Donelle,Lorie
%A Hiebert,Bradley
%A Warner,Grace
%A Reid,Michael
%A Reid,Jennifer
%A Shariff,Salimah
%A Richard,Emily
%A Regan,Sandra
%A Weeks,Lori
%A Ledoux,Kathleen
%+ College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, 1601 Greene St, Columbia, SC, 29208, United States, 1 803 777 6528, ldonelle@mailbox.sc.edu
%K remote monitoring technology
%K home care
%K health service use
%K aging in place
%D 2025
%7 19.3.2025
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Aging
%G English
%X Background: Researchers in Nova Scotia and Ontario, Canada, implemented a passive remote monitoring (PRM) model of home care unique to their health system contexts. Each PRM model integrated tailored PRM devices (eg, motion sensors, cameras, and door alarms) into home care patients’ residences with the aim of linking patients, family and friend caregivers, and health care providers to support older adults’ aging in place. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the use of PRM technologies in the home to support older adults’ safe aging in place and avoidance or delay of higher levels of care. Methods: This multiprovincial pragmatic randomized controlled trial examined how PRM technologies support older adults to safely remain in their home and avoid or delay admission to higher levels of care. Pairs of home care patients and their family and friend caregivers were recruited in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Participant pairs were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) standard home care (ie, control) or (2) standard home care plus study-provided PRM (ie, intervention). Participants provided their provincial health insurance numbers to link with provincial health administrative databases and identify if patients were admitted to higher levels of care after 1 year. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the primary outcome in each province. Results: In total, 313 patient-caregiver pairs were recruited: 174 pairs in Ontario (intervention: n=60; control: n=114) and 139 pairs in Nova Scotia (intervention: n=45; control: n=94). Results indicate PRM was associated with a nonsignificant 30% reduction in risk of patients being admitted to higher levels of care in Ontario (hazard ratio 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.4) and no reduction in risk in Nova Scotia (hazard ratio 1.1, 95% CI 0.3-3.7). Adjusting for patient sex had no impact on model estimates for either province. Conclusions: Limitations related, in part, to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to the effectiveness of the intervention. While our study did not yield statistically significant results (P=.30 and P=.90) regarding the effectiveness of the PRM model in prolonging home stays, the observed trends suggest that technology-assisted aging in place may be a valuable goal for older adults. Further study is required to understand if longer follow-up time allows more effects of PRM on patients’ avoidance of higher levels of care to be detected. Trial Registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN79884651; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79884651 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/15027 
%R 10.2196/69107
%U https://aging.jmir.org/2025/1/e69107
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/69107