Standard care and telecare services: comparing the effectiveness of two service systems with consumers with intellectual disabilities.

Researchers compared two ways to help adults with intellectual disabilities finish daily tasks. One group got onsite staff help in their homes. The other group got step-by-step cues through a remote telecare system.

The team used an alternating-treatments design. Each adult tried both support types on different days. They measured how often the person finished the task alone and how long it took.

Telecare prompting led to slightly more independent task completion. However, tasks took longer when the cue came through the remote system. The gains were small and the sample was small.

In plain words, remote prompts can boost independence a bit, but speed drops.

Storey (2010) predicted this result in a narrative review. That paper said smart-home tech can aid residential supports for adults with ID, but only if the system is simple and staff teach it well.

Granieri et al. (2020) later got bigger gains with smartphone prompts. Their six adults with ID and visual impairments mastered daily activities and kept prior skills. The jump from small to large effects shows the field is learning how to make remote cues work faster.

Wilson et al. (2020) used a similar alternating-treatments design with adolescents with ASD. They found video modeling beat video prompting for cooking skills. Both studies ask the same core question: which remote cue works best? The answers differ because age, task, and device change.

If you support adults with ID in residential settings, think of telecare as a gentle boost, not a full replacement. Start with simple tasks like setting a table or folding laundry. Track both independence and time. If speed matters for the shift schedule, keep staff nearby. If independence is the goal, a remote prompt may be enough.