For mobile technologies, the overall conceptualization of francophone-speaking populations for social acceptability diverged depending on the perspectives that were sought from participants in the studies. From the perspective of healthcare service users, social acceptability for a mobile technology is defined as the technology's ability to meet the needs of end-users on both a personal and technical level. On the personal level, social acceptability was related to the notion of empowerment. For individuals to adopt a digital health technology, they would need to perceive that they are empowered in their care and health management (Cases, 2017). On a technical level, the preferences with regards to the mobile technology itself were described as critical. For example, two studies pointed to the importance for considering the user preferences for the specific content and features of mobile applications (Lessard et al., 2019; Sewitch et al., 2019). From the perspective of healthcare professionals, acceptability is often mentioned in the context of organizational constraints and opportunities. As pointed to Ghandour et al. (2018), social acceptability occurs once a technology has passed through the adoption continuum within an organization.

Social acceptability of mobile technologies is modulated by various factors that differ based on the end-user, whether from the view of the patient (Figure 3) or from the view of a healthcare professional (Figure 4). From the perspective of healthcare service users, a mobile health technology would be accepted if it helps organize care, supports self-care, accounts for technical risks, and has social value. From the perspective of healthcare professionals, the acceptability of a mobile health technology is dependent on its impact toward organization of care, if it supports patient self-care, if it impacts patient/healthcare professional relationships and communication, if it accounts for technical risks, and if it considers organizational factors.

From both perspectives, acceptability was mediated based on a mobile technology's impact on care management, if they supported self-care and if technical risks were minimal. For care management, studies referred to the potential for mobile technologies to enhance the capacity of healthcare service users to monitor their conditions and symptoms, keep a record of symptoms and support recall for care management purposes. For example, healthcare service users in the study by Cases (2017) mentioned that “parce que des fois, on oublie les choses et que… quand on a quelque chose qui nous rappelle ce qui s'est passé, ça fait un historique. sometimes we forget things and when we have something that helps us remember it, it creates a history” (para. 24). For self-care, both healthcare service users and health-care professionals viewed mobile technologies as a personalized tool to promote autonomy by enhancing health literacy, and being engaging and motivating. For example, in the study by Sewitch et al. (2019), healthcare service users reflected on the mobile technology's benefits for autonomy as a result of personalization: “Although the internet can provide the same information as the smartphone app, the app may be more helpful because (tailored) alerts can remove fear and (make sure) you take the right thing at the right time” (p. 6). For technical risks associated with mobile technologies, healthcare service users and healthcare professionals consistently referred to this type of risk as a limiting factor for technology uptake. Technical risks such as design, operationalization features, and privacy and security of data all stood out as factors that significantly impacted willingness to use and adhere to the technology. For example, in the study by Ghandour et al. (2018), healthcare professionals' mentioned that their decision to adopt mobile technologies were based on the functionalities they offered, if they were operatable in tandem with other existing systems and devices, and if they were easily usable by both healthcare service users and healthcare professionals.

Other relevant factors brought up either by healthcare service users or healthcare providers were the social values associated with a mobile technology, the potential for the mobile technology to support communication between a healthcare team and other relevant organizational factors. With regards to social values, healthcare service users positively viewed mobile technologies when healthcare professionals spoke highly of them (positive connotations) and when the technologies positively enhanced their relationships with others. For example, in the case of a mobile technology where healthcare service users enter their medical information and data prior to a medical consultation, healthcare service users had a tendency to use the technology when it was a recommendation from a medical professional, and was therefore perceived as a valuable tool (Cases, 2017). However, in another example where a mobile technology anonymously disclosed exposures to health risk resulting from close contact with someone presenting a specific disease, participants viewed this as discriminatory and impeding on positive relationships with others, and therefore made them reluctant to use the technology (Lessard et al., 2019). From the perspective of healthcare professionals, mobile technologies presented significant potential to improve communication with their patient. However, healthcare professionals raised concerns with the power relations that would be affected in cases when healthcare service users became more involved and knowledgeable about their situation. For example, in the study by Ghandour et al. (2018), an emerging theme concerned how “les professionnels qui doivent aussi s'habituer à une nouvelle réalité dans leur relation avec des patients de plus en plus informés. The healthcare professionals […] must also adapt to a new reality where patients are more and more informed” (p. 842). Additionally, the studies showed that healthcare professionals had some mixed attitudes with regard to mobile technologies because of several organizational factors. While being open and willing to integrate and use mobile technologies to support care management, healthcare professionals indicated concerns with increased needs for resources and time, capacity to manage change, and disruptions in regular modes of work (Ghandour et al., 2018). However, with appropriate mechanisms in place, such as support from management and training opportunities, healthcare professionals truly see the value and benefits from integrating mobile technologies in care management (Ghandour et al., 2018).

When analyzing the potential for uptake of robot technologies, Pino et al. (2015) described it as being determined by factors of the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989). In this model, a person's intention to use and actual use of a technology is determined by several factors of adoption such as social influences, facilitating conditions, trust, privacy concerns, ethical concerns, among others (Pino et al., 2015). Additionally, acceptability is modulated by the perception of stakeholders involved in its implementation including healthcare service users, professionals and caregivers (Zsiga et al., 2013; Pino et al., 2015).

Social acceptability of robot technologies for francophone-speaking populations is determined by factors that are unique to both healthcare service users (Figure 5) and caregivers (Figure 6). From the perspective of healthcare service users, robot technologies are acceptable if they support daily life, align with social values, and meet specific ethical standards. In the case of caregivers, robot technologies need to be embedded within the care continuum and support follow-up, and consider relational aspects within care management as to not remove the human component of care. Healthcare professionals' perspectives on robot technologies were not sought in the identified studies.

For both healthcare service users and caregivers, robots should support a person in performing activities of daily living. For instance, robots should help fil a gap for healthcare service users (i.e., individuals with cognitive impairment) and also for their caregivers to increase the likelihood that it would be accepted (Zsiga et al., 2013; Pino et al., 2015). For users, such as older adults with cognitive impairment, the value of robots remains not only in its potential to be helpful, such as for remembering things, providing companionship, supporting safety at home and in emergency situations, but the technology must also respond and communicate back with the end-user (Zsiga et al., 2013; Pino et al., 2015). For caregivers, robots should ease their role as a caregiver by decreasing the caregiving burden through taking over simple tasks that would otherwise have to be accomplished by a caregiver (Pino et al., 2015). However, caregivers believe that their role as a human caregiver should not be overlooked or neglected even if a robot takes over certain functions (Zsiga et al., 2013).

The ethical factors associated with robots were mentioned in the articles as a point of contention for their use in healthcare. Privacy issues were raised by both healthcare service users and caregivers in the case when robots have the capacity to film (Zsiga et al., 2013) and when the robots have surveillance capacities (Pino et al., 2015). The studies reported that filming and surveillance capacities were viewed as infringing on the users' privacy. One article noted, however, that caregivers value safety of the person they cared for as a necessary trade-off to confidentiality and privacy (Pino et al., 2015). In regard to the appearance of the robot, healthcare service users viewed them as potentially stigmatizing. As pointed out by a participant with mild cognitive impairment in Pino et al. (2015), “some work has to be done if you don't want people to think that if they are given a robot it's because they are not worth a human company” (p. 10). Generally, animal-like or machine-like robots were preferred by both healthcare service users and caregivers because human-like appearances may be viewed as infantilizing and even confuse older adults with cognitive impairment (Pino et al., 2015).

In the literature the social acceptability of telemedicine for francophone-speaking populations is mainly described in terms of its organizational impacts and requirements (Lamothe et al., 2013; Mathieu-Fritz and Esterle, 2013; Meyer et al., 2014; Durupt et al., 2016; Odnoletkova et al., 2016; Mathieu-Fritz, 2018; Habib et al., 2019). The nature of telemedicine, which involves healthcare professionals, aligns with the social acceptability construct focussed on organizational factors. As described in Mathieu-Fritz and Esterle (2013), telemedicine usage is dependent on the benefits it has on improving professional practice. Telemedicine's acceptability is also defined for its benefits toward healthcare service users. As described by Odnoletkova et al. (2016), healthcare service users can benefit from telemedicine as it is an effective form of communication with the care team, it enhances health literacy, provides useful and timely information, and leads to satisfaction with overall care management.

In the articles retrieved, factors of social acceptability for telemedicine for healthcare service users and healthcare professionals were similar except for organizational factors (Figures 7, 8). For both groups, telemedicine was accepted if it allowed for better care coordination, supported patient self-care, enabled better communication between the patient and the care team, and effectively considered and mitigated technical risks.

Telemedicine, which is composed of diverse modes of virtual consultation through which healthcare service users can receive medical advice and treatment, is a powerful tool for better organization of care and mitigating challenges with care management. From all perspectives, one critical component that makes telemedicine acceptable is the necessity for it to improving access to care (Lamothe et al., 2013; Mathieu-Fritz and Esterle, 2013; Meyer et al., 2014; Durupt et al., 2016; Odnoletkova et al., 2016; Mathieu-Fritz, 2018; Habib et al., 2019). Its potential to connect healthcare service users that live far from care specialists (Durupt et al., 2016; Habib et al., 2019) and those who are unable to travel to a healthcare professional due to medical reasons (Mathieu-Fritz and Esterle, 2013; Odnoletkova et al., 2016), make it an attractive tool overall. Additionally, telemedicine also presents opportunities for mitigating shortages in medical professionals by allowing healthcare service users to consult with healthcare professionals that they would otherwise not be able to receive due to geographical constraints (Durupt et al., 2016).

One of the unique factors associated with telemedicine, which was viewed as a critical factor of acceptability, is its potential to connect healthcare service users and the care team along with healthcare professionals within the care team. The highly collaborative nature of the technology was viewed by healthcare service users and healthcare providers as an avenue for personalized knowledge exchange and even building health literacy of healthcare service users. For example, the results from Habib et al. (2019) demonstrate that telemedicine enable more efficient referral processes since different parts of the healthcare system can more easily connect, collaborate and exchange on care management options of healthcare service users.

While telemedicine presented as a positive solution, the studies revealed that factors associated with technical risks of the technology also influenced the choice to use it. Issues with the technological infrastructure and the unnatural aspects of telemedicine pose challenges to healthcare providers which may decide against using the technology. For example, healthcare professionals have noted issues with the sound and video quality (Mathieu-Fritz, 2018), challenges associated with getting used to new software and ways of working (Odnoletkova et al., 2016), and technology failures (Meyer et al., 2014) as all decreasing their willingness and commitment toward using the technology.

Finally, and unique to healthcare providers, are considerations for organizational effects of telemedicine. While being able to connect with members of the care team presented as an attractive organizational benefit of telemedicine (Habib et al., 2019), the associated increase in workload and procedural changes may also hinder its uptake. For example, Durupt et al. (2016) discussed how healthcare professionals needed significant amounts of time to learn and implement telemedicine, which, in turn, augmented workload. Procedurally, telemedicine also presented as a challenge since it requires that system administrators rethink diagnostic and patient intake mechanisms due to the virtual nature of consultations (Habib et al., 2019). For telemedicine to be attractive and implemented by healthcare professionals, organizational challenges should be mitigated to decrease the burden and difficulties that would otherwise fall on healthcare professionals and administrators.

Social acceptability of sensor and wearable technologies for francophone-speaking populations relies heavily on the capacity of the technology to monitor and detect a predetermined event or activity (Delbreil and Zvobgo, 2013; Houle et al., 2020). Specifically, when the technology demonstrated potential improvements to health and security, stakeholders were more likely to engage with them.

Social acceptability factors impacting use of sensor and wearable technologies are similar to all the previous technologies and dependent of the patient or healthcare professional perspective. From the patient perspective, sensor and wearable technologies are accepted if they enable more effective care organization, supports self-care, have limited technical risks and are accessible in terms of their cost (Figure 9). Similarly, for healthcare professionals, sensor and wearable technologies are accepted if they support care organization, supports patient self-care, account for technical challenges, and consider organizational factors (Figure 10).

Improvements to care through better access and connectedness to healthcare professionals is a common factor of acceptability. As described in the study by Houle et al. (2020) wearing a technology facilitates easy and direct access to a healthcare professional, who can act as a source of motivation and take on an instructor role for the patient. Additionally, self-care is a common theme for both healthcare service users and healthcare professionals as both technologies allow the end users to remain autonomous, monitor their habits and motivate them to continue or enhance their efforts. As discussed in Delbreil and Zvobgo (2013), sensor technology supports autonomy and can enable the reduction of medication intake which are both seen to lead to positive health outcomes such as improved quality of life.

While the care organization and self-care are facilitating factors to the adoption of sensor and wearable technology, the technical risks were mentioned throughout as a major concern. For healthcare service users, dissatisfaction with the physical appearance and comfort of the technology, and issues with digital literacy were both barriers to using the technology. In the case of physical appearance and comfort for example, healthcare service users in Houle et al. (2020) pointed to challenges with wearing pedometers with different outfits such as dresses. Additionally, both healthcare professionals and healthcare service users in the study by Houle et al. (2020) mentioned some barriers with the use of the technology because “we (healthcare providers) have to think about teaching healthcare service users to use the technology, obviously, but sometimes we think it's easy for some of our staff, when in fact it can be a huge problem” (Houle et al., 2020, p. 8). Additionally, another major barrier for both healthcare service users and healthcare professionals is the concern for data confidentiality and privacy. The data gathered through the sensor and wearable technologies can easily be shared and may sometimes reveal confidential and sensitive data that healthcare service users may not want to share. As pointed out in the study by Houle et al. (2020), it is the online transmission of data by healthcare professionals that can lead to breaches in confidentiality. However, the results from Delbreil and Zvobgo (2013) point to a certain level of acceptance from end users on losing some privacy to the benefit of enhanced autonomy.

Healthcare professionals raised organizational barriers and opportunities as critical factors of sensor and wearable technology implementation and adoption. In the case of pedometers, these wearable devices are easy-to-use and highly compatible with existing systems (Houle et al., 2020). The compatibility of sensors, however, was not discussed. Often, sensor and wearable technologies must be used in conjunction with other platforms, such as an online web-based platforms, which can enhance the complexity if the platform isn't accessible or designed to meet accessibility standards for end-users. Additionally, having to conjoin technologies and platform can also complicate data exchange in instances where healthcare professionals need to access platforms that are secured or blocked. For example, a participant in the study by Houle et al. (2020) mentioned that “trying to access information, the websites can't be accessed, they're secure, so this complicates things too” (p. 8). Finally, another important barrier for both groups is the cost of sensor and wearable technologies. For healthcare service users, the cost of purchasing these technologies can represent significant amounts that are not realistic and within reach for many (Houle et al., 2020). Another cost-related issue concerns the necessary training and cost of training for healthcare professionals that need to become familiar and acquainted with the technology to integrate it within existing services (Houle et al., 2020).