Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26035899›Full record

ArticleThe Gerontologist2016

Caregivers' Willingness to Pay for Technologies to Support Caregiving.

Richard Schulz, Scott R Beach, Judith T Matthews, Karen Courtney, Annette De Vito Dabbs, Laurel Person Mecca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Gerontologist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Richard SchulzDepartment of Psychiatry and UCSUR, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. schulz@pitt.edu.
Scott R BeachUCSUR, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Judith T MatthewsUCSUR, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Karen CourtneySchool of Health and Information Sciences, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Annette De Vito DabbsSchool of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Laurel Person MeccaUCSUR, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Funding

VARIABILITY, STABILITY & SMOOTHNESS OF WALKINGP30AG024827 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JENNIFER S BRACH · 2004 to 2026
$28.6M
Self-management via Health Kiosk by Community-residing Older AdultsR01HS022889 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI MATTHEWS, JUDITH T · 2014 to 2018
$2.4M
First Person Vision for Objective Evaluation of Caregiving QualityR21NR013450 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI MATTHEWS, JUDITH T · 2012 to 2013
$410k
Promoting Self-Care After Lung TransplantationK01NR009385 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI DE VITO DABBS, ANNETTE J · 2005 to 2007
$264k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022889NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024827NINR NIH HHS K01 NR009385NINR NIH HHS R21 NR013450
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of the studyWe report the results of a study designed to assess whether and how much informal caregivers are willing to pay for technologies designed to help monitor and support care recipients (CRs) in performing kitchen and personal care tasks. DESIGN AND

methodsWe carried out a web survey of a national sample of adult caregivers (age 18-64) caring for an older adult (N = 512). Respondents completed a 25min online survey that included questions about their caregiving situation, current use of everyday technology, use of specific caregiving technologies, general attitudes toward technology, and questions about technologies designed to help them monitor and provide assistance for CRs' kitchen and self-care activities.

resultsAbout 20% of caregivers were not willing to pay anything for kitchen and self-care technologies. Among those willing to pay something, the mean amount was approximately $50 per month for monitoring technologies and $70 per month for technologies that both monitored and provided some assistance. Younger caregivers, those caring for a person with Alzheimer's disease, and caregivers with more positive attitudes toward and experience with technology were willing to pay more. Most caregivers feel that the government or private insurance should help pay for these technologies. IMPLICATIONS: Caregivers are receptive and willing to pay for technologies that help them care for their CR, although the amount they are willing to pay is capped at around $70 per month. The combination of private pay and government subsidy may facilitate development and dissemination of caregiver technologies.

Indexed as

AttitudeCaregiversHealth ExpendituresAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnologyYoung AdultAgingCaregivingDisabilityKitchen assistancePersonal careTechnologyWillingness to pay

Identifiers

PMID26035899
PMCPMC5019044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.