Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326778›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

Cross-cultural perspectives on intelligent assistive technology in dementia care: comparing Israeli and German experts' attitudes.

Hanan AboJabel, Johannes Welsch, Silke Schicktanz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Hanan AboJabelDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. hanan.abujabal@med.uni-goettingen.de.
Johannes WelschDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1729-4335
Silke SchicktanzDepartment of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9627-752X
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the great benefits of intelligent assistive technology (IAT) for dementia care - for example, the enhanced safety and increased independence of people with dementia and their caregivers - its practical adoption is still limited. The social and ethical issues pertaining to IAT in dementia care, shaped by factors such as culture, may explain these limitations. However, most studies have focused on understanding these issues within one cultural setting only. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore and compare the attitudes of Israeli and German dementia experts toward IAT in dementia care, to contribute to a more cultural-comparative perspective.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 experts (15 Israelis and 20 Germans) in key roles in health and community services for people with dementia as well as in the fields of dementia and IAT (e.g., computer science, electrical/biomedical engineering, ethics, nursing, and gerontology). Thematic content analysis was used to analyze the data.

findingsIsraeli and German experts identified the same social accelerators in the development and implementation of IAT in dementia care (i.e., changes in family structure and social digitization) and benefits of adopting IAT (e.g., enhancing the safety of people with dementia and increasing their independence). However, there were differences in inhibitor/risk assessments between the two groups. Namely, economic considerations and the cognitive capacity of people with dementia were identified by both groups as inhibitors, while Israeli experts additionally reported stigma and ageism. Whereas both groups agreed that IAT might reduce human connection, and that the technology is not yet reliable enough, German experts highlighted concerns regarding privacy; in contrast, Israeli experts prioritized safety over privacy.

conclusionsOur research findings allow for the identification of relevant similarities but also important differences between German and Israeli experts' perspectives. As such, an important basis has been provided for a more in-depth discussion regarding where, why, and how culturally-sensitive technology development is needed.

Indexed as

DementiaEuropean PeopleSelf-Help DevicesCaregiversCross-Cultural ComparisonHumansIsraelCross-cultural studyDementiaEmpowermentIntelligent assistive technologyPrivacyStigma

Identifiers

PMID38326778
PMCPMC10848426
OpenAlexW4391610716

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.