Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35896014›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2022

Advance Planning for Technology Use in Dementia Care: Development, Design, and Feasibility of a Novel Self-administered Decision-Making Tool.

Clara Berridge, Natalie R Turner, Liu Liu, Sierramatice W Karras, Amy Chen, Karen Fredriksen-Goldsen, George Demiris

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clara BerridgeSchool of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4218-9556
Natalie R TurnerSchool of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0351-458X
Liu LiuCollege of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6900-9829
Sierramatice W KarrasClinical Informatics Research Group, Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2540-0428
Amy ChenClinical Informatics Research Group, Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5775-0561
Karen Fredriksen-GoldsenSchool of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7846-349X
George DemirisSchool of Nursing and Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6318-5829
University of Washington · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Research CenterP30AG066509 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Thomas J. Grabowski · 2020 to 2026
$29.0M
Scientific/Technical CoreP2CHD042828 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Daniel T A Eisenberg · 2017 to 2026
$6.3M
Engaging older adults with cognitive impairment in planning for technology use in their care: the Identifying Needs for Optimal Remote Monitoring tool (INFORM)K01AG062681 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BERRIDGE, CLARA · 2019 to 2022
$495k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG062681NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066509NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042828
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring technologies are used to collect a range of information, such as one's location out of the home or movement within the home, and transmit that information to caregivers to support aging in place. Their surveilling nature, however, poses ethical dilemmas and can be experienced as intrusive to people living with Alzheimer disease (AD) and AD-related dementias. These challenges are compounded when older adults are not engaged in decision-making about how they are monitored. Dissemination of these technologies is outpacing our understanding of how to communicate their functions, risks, and benefits to families and older adults. To date, there are no tools to help families understand the functions of monitoring technologies or guide them in balancing their perceived need for ongoing surveillance and the older adult's dignity and wishes.

objectiveWe designed, developed, and piloted a communication and education tool in the form of a web application called Let's Talk Tech to support family decision-making about diverse technologies used in dementia home care. The knowledge base about how to design online interventions for people living with mild dementia is still in development, and dyadic interventions used in dementia care remain rare. We describe the intervention's motivation and development process, and the feasibility of using this self-administered web application intervention in a pilot sample of people living with mild AD and their family care partners.

methodsWe surveyed 29 mild AD dementia care dyads living together before and after they completed the web application intervention and interviewed each dyad about their experiences with it. We report postintervention measures of feasibility (recruitment, enrollment, and retention) and acceptability (satisfaction, quality, and usability). Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey items, and thematic analysis was used with interview transcripts to illuminate participants' experiences and recommendations to improve the intervention.

resultsThe study enrolled 33 people living with AD and their care partners, and 29 (88%) dyads completed the study (all but one were spousal dyads). Participants were asked to complete 4 technology modules, and all completed them. The majority of participants rated the tool as having the right length (>90%), having the right amount of information (>84%), being very clearly worded (>74%), and presenting information in a balanced way (>90%). Most felt the tool was easy to use and helpful, and would likely recommend it to others.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that our intervention to educate and facilitate conversation and documentation of preferences is preliminarily feasible and acceptable to mild AD care dyads. Effectively involving older adults in these decisions and informing care partners of their preferences could enable families to avoid conflicts or risks associated with uninformed or disempowered use and to personalize use so both members of the dyad can experience benefits.

Indexed as

advance care planningagingAlzheimer diseaseartificial intelligencedementia caredigital tooldyadic interventioneducational toolelderly populationethicshuman-computer interactioninformed consentolder adultremote monitoringseniorstechnology

Identifiers

PMID35896014
PMCPMC9377442
OpenAlexW4288066778

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.