Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36367765›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2022

Electronic Tracking Devices for People With Dementia: Content Analysis of Company Websites.

Jared Howes, Yvonne Denier, Chris Gastmans

Abstract 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 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Jared HowesCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6459-9655
Yvonne DenierCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3715-4236
Chris GastmansCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5522-0639

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic tracking devices, also known as locators, monitors, or surveillance devices, are increasingly being used to manage dementia-related wandering and, subsequently, raising various ethical questions. Despite the known importance technology design has on the ethics of technologies, little research has focused on the companies responsible for the design and development of electronic tracking devices. This paper is the first to perform a qualitative analysis of the ethically related content of the websites of companies that design and develop electronic tracking devices.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to understand how companies that design, develop, and market electronic tracking devices for dementia care frame, through textual marketing content, the vulnerabilities and needs of persons with dementia and caregivers, the way in which electronic tracking devices respond to these vulnerabilities and needs, and the ethical issues and values at stake.

methodsElectronic tracking device company websites were identified via a Google search, 2 device recommendation lists (Alzheimer's Los Angeles and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health), and the 2 recent reviews of wander management technology by Neubauer et al and Ray et al. To be included, websites must be official representations of companies (not market or third-party websites) developing and selling electronic tracking devices for use in dementia care. The search was conducted on December 22, 2020, returning 199 websites excluding duplicates. Data synthesis and analysis were conducted on the textual content of the included websites using a modified form of the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.

resultsIn total, 29 websites met the inclusion criteria. Most (15/29, 52%) companies were in the United States. The target audience of the websites was largely caregivers. A range of intertwined vulnerabilities facing persons with dementia and their caregivers were identified, and the companies addressed these via care tools that centered on certain values such as providing information while preserving privacy. Life after device implementation was characterized as a world aspired to that sees increased safety for persons with dementia and peace of mind for caregivers.

conclusionsThe way electronic tracking device content is currently conveyed excludes persons with dementia as a target audience. In presenting their products as a response to vulnerabilities, particular values are linked to design elements. A limitation of the results is the opaque nature of website content origins. How or when values arise in the process of design, development, and marketing is unknown. Therefore, further research should explore the process companies use to identify vulnerabilities, how values are decided upon and integrated into the design of products, and the perceptions of developers regarding the ethics of electronic tracking devices.

Indexed as

bioethicscaregivercare tooldementiadeviceelderlyelectronic tracking deviceslocatorsmanagementmonitorssurveillance devicestechnologyvulnerablewandering

Identifiers

PMID36367765
PMCPMC9700241

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.