Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35089150›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Perceptions of Digital Technology Experiences and Development Among Family Caregivers and Technology Researchers: Qualitative Study.

Chen Xiong, Andrea D'Souza, Graziella El-Khechen-Richandi, Alex Mihailidis, Jill I Cameron, Arlene Astell, Emily Nalder, Angela Colantonio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Chen XiongRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3342-198X
Andrea D'SouzaToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2611-2548
Graziella El-Khechen-RichandiToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3628-643X
Alex MihailidisRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2233-0919
Jill I CameronRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4161-1572
Arlene AstellRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6822-9472
Emily NalderRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9612-9420
Angela ColantonioRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2094-4765

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaregiving is highly stressful and is associated with poor mental and physical health. Various technologies, including mobile and eHealth apps, have been developed to address caregiver needs. However, there is still a paucity of research examining the technology perceptions of informal caregivers, especially from the perspectives of sex, gender, and diversity.

objectiveTo address the research gap and inform the development of future caregiving technologies, this study aims to examine how family caregivers perceive using technology to assist with their caregiving routines; identify the sex, gender, and diversity factors that shape these perceptions; and understand how these perceptions and needs are reflected within the current technology development process.

methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 16 informal caregivers of individuals with a range of chronic medical conditions and 8 technology researchers involved in caregiving technology projects.

resultsThree main themes with subthemes were developed. The first main theme is that caregivers see a need for technology in their lives, and it comprises the following 3 subthemes: caregiving is a challenging endeavor, technology is multifaceted, and caregiver preferences facilitate technology use. The second main theme is that relationships play a vital role in mediating technology uptake, and it comprises the following 2 subthemes: the caregiver-care recipient dynamic shapes technology perceptions and caregivers rely on external sources for technology information. Finally, the third main theme is that barriers are present in the use and adoption of technology, and it comprises the following 2 subthemes: technology may not be compatible with personal values and abilities and technology that is not tailored toward caregivers lacks adoption.

conclusionsThe findings highlight the multifaceted role that technology can play in aiding caregiving while drawing attention to the perceived drawbacks of these technologies among caregivers. The inclusion of technology researchers in this study provides a more holistic understanding of technologies in caregiving from their initial development to their eventual uptake by caregivers.

Indexed as

caregivingdigital technologiesdiversitygendersex

Identifiers

PMID35089150
PMCPMC8838597

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.