The Olera.care Digital Caregiving Assistance Platform for Dementia Caregivers: Preliminary Evaluation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of Alzheimer disease and Alzheimer disease-related dementia in the United States has amplified the health care burden and caregiving challenges, especially for caregivers of people living with dementia. A web-based care planning tool, Olera.care, was developed to aid caregivers in managing common challenges associated with dementia care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to preliminarily evaluate the quality and usability of the Olera.care platform and assess the preferences of using the technology and interests in learning about different older adult care services among caregivers. METHODS: For interview 1, we aim to understand caregiving needs and let the participants start engaging with the platform. After they engage with the platform, we schedule the second interview and let the participants complete the Mobile Application Rating Scale. The survey also included sociodemographic characteristics, caregiving experiences, communication preferences in technology adoption, and older adult care service use and interests. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the quality and usability of the platform and characteristics of the participants. We conducted 2-sample 2-tailed t tests to examine the differences in the Mobile Application Rating Scale evaluation scores by caregiver characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 30 adult caregivers in Texas completed the evaluation. The majority were aged ≥50 years (25/30, 83%), women (23/30, 77%), White (25/30, 83%), and financially stable (20/30, 67%). The Olera.care platform evaluation showed high satisfaction, with an overall mean rating of 4.57 (SD 0.57) of 5, and scored well in engagement (mean 4.10, SD 0.61), functionality (mean 4.46, SD 0.44), aesthetics (mean 4.58, SD 0.53), and information quality (mean 4.76, SD 0.44) consistently across all participants. A statistically significant difference (P=.02) was observed in functionality evaluation scores by duration of caregiving, with caregivers dedicating more hours to care rating it higher than those providing less care (mean 4.6, SD 0.4 vs mean 4.2, SD 0.5). In addition, caregivers with less caregiving experience reported significantly higher evaluation scores for aesthetics (P=.04) and information quality (P=.03) compared to those with longer years of caregiving. All participants expressed a willingness to recommend the app to others, and 90% (27/30) rated the app overall positively. Most of the participants (21/30, 70%) favored anonymous interactions before receiving personalized feedback and preferred computer browsers over mobile apps. Medical home health services were the most used, with a diverse range of services being used. Caregiver support groups, medical providers, memory care, meal services, and adult day care were among the most desired services for future exploration. CONCLUSIONS: The Olera.care web-based platform is a practical, engaging, easy-to-use, visually appealing, and informative tool for dementia caregivers. Future development and research are essential to enhance the platform and comprehensively evaluate it among a broader population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».