As Canada’s population ages, Long-Term Care (LTC) homes face increasing pressure to deliver effective care amid staffing shortages and growing resident complexity. Technology-based recreational interventions may be promising tools to support resident well-being. We evaluated the implementation of The Happiness Programme, a light-projection-based recreational technology, using a “fail-fast” method. Training was provided and the program was integrated into routine care for 6 months. Data were collected through surveys, along with usage of metrics and tracking of resident engagement. Surveys showed that the technology was easy to use and especially useful for residents with limited mobility or lower cognitive function. Technical issues impeded consistent use. Our findings suggest that while The Happiness Programme offers value for specific subgroups of residents, its broader impact is contingent on strong infrastructure, staff capacity, and ongoing support. This study emphasizes the overall value in “failing fast” when evaluating innovations in a long-term care setting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Common Challenges, Shared Priorities: Measuring Access to Home and Community Care and to Mental Health and Substance Use Services in Canada—Volume 3. Ottawa, ON: CIHI; 2021. Available at: https://www.cihi.ca/
2.
Conference Board of Canada. Meeting the Care Needs of Canada’s Aging Population. Ottawa, ON: Conference Board of Canada; 2018. Available at: https://www.conferenceboard.ca
3.
Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health. Canadian Clinical Guidelines on Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults. Toronto, ON: CCSMH; 2024.
4.
McArthurCBaiYHewstonPGiangregorioLStrausSPapaioannouA. Barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):70. doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01140-0
5.
NilsenERDugstadJEideHGullslettMKEideT. Exploring resistance to implementation of welfare technology in municipal healthcare services: a longitudinal case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:657. doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1913-5
6.
HardyM-SFanakiCSavoieC. The use of technology by seniors with neurocognitive disorders in long-term care: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24:573. doi:10.1186/s12877-024-05174-z
7.
ColeTRCrooksVASorensenJ, et al.“I would have to walk around to find the best Wi-Fi connection…”: qualitatively exploring challenges associated with rapid rollout of telehealth in Canadian long-term care homes. BMC Digit Health. 2024;2:69. doi:10.1186/s44247-024-00125-5
8.
ChapmanSAMillerJRSpetzJ. Emerging health technologies in long-term care and suppliers’ views on their potential to assist and support the workforce. Med Care Res Rev. 2023;80(6):619-630. doi:10.1177/10775587231190127
9.
SaragihIDTonapaSISaragihISLeeB-O. Effects of cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;128:104181. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104181
10.
ClarkSEVeraSJNMonizTAppletonRBarnettPVindrola-PadrosC. A systematic review of the methods used in rapid approaches to research and Evaluation. Eval Rev. 2025;49(6):951-968. doi:10.1177/0193841X251338536
11.
DoppARParisiKEMunsonSALyonAR. A glossary of user-centered design strategies for implementation experts. Transl Behav Med. 2019;9(6):1057-1064. doi:10.1093/tbm/iby119
12.
EismanABKimBSalloumRGShumanCJGlasgowRE. Advancing rapid adaptation for urgent public health crises: using implementation science to facilitate effective and efficient responses. Front Public Health. 2022;10:959567. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.959567
13.
DuvenageCVan WykNCLeechR. A rapid-cycle evaluation and adjustment of paediatric tonsillectomy primary caregiver education: qualitative research in implementation science. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences. 2024;20:100692.
14.
AdenijiOAStennerKPappasETraynorVChrysanthakiTCareyN. Barriers and facilitators to the rapid adaptations of healthcare service delivery during public health emergencies: a systematic integrative review of literature. Glob Implement Res Appl. 2025;5:237-261. doi:10.1007/s43477-025-00155-9
15.
ChanAKMRudolphJWLauVNM, et al.Rapid cycle system improvement for COVID-19 readiness: integrating deliberate practice, psychological safety and vicarious learning. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2020;7(4):199-206. doi:10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000635
16.
BalbaleSNSchäferWLADavisTL, et al.A mixed-method approach to generate and deliver rapid-cycle evaluation feedback: lessons learned from a multicenter implementation trial in pediatric surgery. Implement Sci Commun. 2023;4(1):82. doi:10.1186/s43058-023-00463-x
17.
QuanbeckAHennessyRGParkL. Applying concepts from “rapid” and “agile” implementation to advance implementation research. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3(1):118. doi:10.1186/s43058-022-00366-3
18.
Vindrola-PadrosCBrageEJohnsonGA. Rapid, responsive, and relevant? a systematic review of rapid evaluations in health care. Am J Eval. 2021;42(1):13-27. doi:10.1177/1098214019886914
19.
SchneeweissSShrankWHRuhlMMaclureM. Decision-making aligned with rapid-cycle evaluation in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(4):214-222. doi:10.1017/S0266462315000410
