Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32423406›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2020

Sex and gender differences in technology needs and preferences among informal caregivers of persons with dementia.

Chen Xiong, Bing Ye, Alex Mihailidis, Jill I Cameron, Arlene Astell, Emily Nalder, Angela Colantonio

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chen XiongRehabilitation Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Suite 160, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada. chen.xiong@mail.utoronto.ca.
Bing YeToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, 550 University Ave, Toronto, M5G 2A2, Ontario, Canada.
Alex MihailidisRehabilitation Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Suite 160, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Jill I CameronRehabilitation Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Suite 160, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Arlene AstellRehabilitation Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Suite 160, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Emily NalderRehabilitation Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Suite 160, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Angela ColantonioRehabilitation Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, Suite 160, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1V7, Canada.
Toronto Rehabilitation Institute · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

CIHR CGW-126580CIHR SGB-155385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDementia is a major public health concern associated with significant caregiver demands and there are technologies available to assist with caregiving. However, there is a paucity of information on caregiver needs and preferences for these technologies, particularly from a sex and gender perspective. To address this gap in research, the objectives of this study are to examine (1) the knowledge of technology, (2) perceived usefulness of technology, (3) feature preferences when installing and using technology and (4) sex and gender influences on technology needs and preferences among family caregivers of persons with dementia (PWD) across North America.

methodsA secondary analysis was conducted on an existing cross-sectional survey with family caregivers of PWDs. Respondents were recruited through the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the Victorian Order of Nurses and Adult Day Programs and other Canadian health care provision institutes. Descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to describe the study sample, uncover differences between male and female caregivers and examine sex and gender influences on caregivers' technology needs and preferences.

resultsA total of 381 eligible responses were received over a nine month data collection period. The majority of respondents did not know much about and never used any technologies to assist with caregiving. "Being easy to install", "easy to learn how to use" and "cost" were identified as the most important features when purchasing and setting up technology, while "reliability" was identified as the most important feature when using technology. Most respondents were willing to pay up to $500 to acquire individual technologies. Controlling for other socio-demographic variables, female respondents were more likely to have some or more knowledge about technology for caregiving while male respondents were more willing to pay higher amounts for these technologies compared to their female counterparts.

conclusionsAs one of the first studies of its kind, our findings represent a step towards the incorporation of sex and gender considerations such as cost and reliability in technology design and promotion for caregivers. Future efforts are warranted to establish an in-depth understanding of sex and gender influences in relation to other social and environmental factors.

Indexed as

CaregiversDementiaCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSex CharacteristicsTechnologyCaregivingDementiaSex and genderTechnology

Identifiers

PMID32423406
PMCPMC7236350
OpenAlexW3017280916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.