Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31102442›Full record

ArticleThe Gerontologist2020

Why Older Adults and Their Children Disagree About In-Home Surveillance Technology, Sensors, and Tracking.

Clara Berridge, Terrie Fox Wetle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Gerontologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 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. Review
  13. Relational Solidarity and Conflicting Ethics in Dementia Care in Urban India.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Clara BerridgeSchool of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle.
Terrie Fox WetleDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Funding

Scientific/Technical CoreP2CHD042828 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SARA R. CURRAN · 2017 to 2026
$6.3M
National Research Service AwardT32HS000011 · AHRQ · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI TRIVEDI, AMAL N. · 1986 to 2024
$6.1M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS000011NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042828
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesDespite the surveilling nature of technologies that allow caregivers to remotely monitor location, movements, or activities, the potential differences in comfort with remote monitoring between caregivers and care recipients have not been examined in depth. On the dyad and aggregate level, we compare preferences of older adult women and their adult children for three remote monitoring technologies. Their assessments of each technology's impact on privacy, safety, independence, freedom, relationship with family member, social life, and identity are also compared. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsThis dyadic study used cognitive-based interview probing and value-centered design methods. Twenty-eight individual, in-depth, structured interviews were conducted with 18 women who are Meals on Wheels clients and 10 of their adult children.

resultsMeals on Wheels participants reported multiple chronic conditions and an average of 1.7 ADL and 3.3 IADL difficulties; two thirds were enrolled in Medicaid. Adult children preferred each technology more than their mothers did and underestimated both their mothers' ability to comprehend the functions of the technologies and the importance of engaging them fully in decision making. Most were confident that they could persuade their mothers to adopt. For both groups, privacy was the most-cited concern, and participants perceived significant overlap between values of privacy, independence, identity, and freedom. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Studying privacy in isolation overlooks privacy's instrumental role in enabling other values. Shared decision-making tools are needed to promote remote monitoring use consistent with older adults' values and to prevent conflict and caregiver overreach.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesRemote Sensing TechnologyActivities of Daily LivingAdultAdult ChildrenAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversFemaleFood ServicesHumansIndependent LivingMaleMedicaidMiddle AgedMothersCaregivingDyadEthicsPrivacyValues

Identifiers

PMID31102442
PMCPMC13377232

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.