Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33843596›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2021

Requirements for Unobtrusive Monitoring to Support Home-Based Dementia Care: Qualitative Study Among Formal and Informal Caregivers.

Christian Wrede, Annemarie Braakman-Jansen, Lisette van Gemert-Pijnen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. In-Home Monitoring Technology for Aging in Place: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Christian WredeCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5748-7089
Annemarie Braakman-JansenCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6430-3946
Lisette van Gemert-PijnenCentre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6511-7240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to a growing shortage in residential care, people with dementia will increasingly be encouraged to live at home for longer. Although people with dementia prefer extended independent living, this also puts more pressure on both their informal and formal care networks. To support (in)formal caregivers of people with dementia, there is growing interest in unobtrusive contactless in-home monitoring technologies that allow caregivers to remotely monitor the lifestyle, health, and safety of their care recipients. Despite their potential, these solutions will only be viable if they meet the expectations and needs of formal and informal caregivers of people with dementia.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to explore the expected benefits, barriers, needs, and requirements toward unobtrusive in-home monitoring from the perspective of formal and informal caregivers of community-dwelling people with dementia.

methodsA combination of semistructured interviews and focus groups was used to collect data among informal (n=19) and formal (n=16) caregivers of people with dementia. Both sets of participants were presented with examples of unobtrusive in-home monitoring followed by questions addressing expected benefits, barriers, and needs. Relevant in-home monitoring goals were identified using a previously developed topic list. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed and inductively analyzed. Requirements for unobtrusive in-home monitoring were elicited based on the procedure of van Velsen and Bergvall-Kåreborn.

resultsFormal and informal caregivers saw unobtrusive in-home monitoring as a support tool that should particularly be used to monitor (the risk of) falls, day and night rhythm, personal hygiene, nocturnal restlessness, and eating and drinking behavior. Generally, (in)formal caregivers reported cross-checking self-care information, extended independent living, objective communication, prevention and proactive measures, emotional reassurance, and personalized and optimized care as the key benefits of unobtrusive in-home monitoring. Main concerns centered around privacy, information overload, and ethical concerns related to dehumanizing care. Furthermore, 16 requirements for unobtrusive in-home monitoring were generated that specified desired functions, how the technology should communicate with the user, which services surrounding the technology were seen as needed, and how the technology should be integrated into the existing work context.

conclusionsDespite the presence of barriers, formal and informal caregivers of people with dementia generally saw value in unobtrusive in-home monitoring, and felt that these systems could contribute to a shift from reactive to more proactive and less obtrusive care. However, the full potential of unobtrusive in-home monitoring can only unfold if relevant concerns are considered. Our requirements can inform the development of more acceptable and goal-directed in-home monitoring technologies to support home-based dementia care.

Indexed as

aging in placeambient assisted livingassistive technologiesdementiahome careinformal carein-home monitoring

Identifiers

PMID33843596
PMCPMC8076981

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.