BACKGROUND: Welfare technologies are increasingly promoted to support people with dementia in living independently and safely. While prior research has primarily focused on user acceptance, usability, and effectiveness, less attention has been paid to the role of professionals who assess, select, and recommend these technologies. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify and map the determinants that influence prescribers' recommendations of welfare technologies for people with dementia. METHODS: The review followed an established scoping review framework and adhered to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, focusing on empirical studies published between 2016 and 2026. Studies were included if they examined professional practices related to recommending or prescribing welfare or assistive technologies for people with dementia. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed using a descriptive thematic approach. RESULTS: Three categories of determinants were identified: professional, organisational and systemic, and technological and contextual. Professional determinants included knowledge, experience, ethical reasoning, and assessments of user and carer capability. Organisational determinants encompassed time constraints, training, procurement systems, and availability of technologies. Technological determinants related to usability, reliability, and suitability for cognitive impairment. Across studies, recommendation emerged as a sociotechnical process shaped by the alignment between these factors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight that access to welfare technologies is mediated by professional recommendation practices and shaped by multi-level conditions. The study contributes a fit-based understanding of recommendation, emphasising the need to address professional, organisational, and technological conditions to improve equitable access to appropriate technologies in dementia care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsertsidis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: