Perceptions and Utilization of Online Peer Support Among Informal Dementia Caregivers: Survey Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Informal dementia caregivers are those who care for a person living with dementia and do not receive payment (eg, family members, friends, or other unpaid caregivers). These informal caregivers are subject to substantial mental, physical, and financial burdens. Online communities enable these caregivers to exchange caregiving strategies and communicate experiences with other caregivers whom they generally do not know in real life. Research has demonstrated the benefits of peer support in online communities, but this research is limited, focusing merely on caregivers who are already online community users. Objective: We aimed to investigate the perceptions and utilization of online peer support through a survey. Methods: Following the Andersen and Newman Framework of Health Services Utilization and using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), we designed and administered a survey to investigate the perceptions and utilization of online peer support among informal dementia caregivers. Specifically, we collected types of information that influence whether an informal dementia caregiver accesses online peer support: predisposing factors, which refer to the sociocultural characteristics of caregivers, relationships between caregivers and people living with dementia, and belief in the value of online peer support; enabling factors, which refer to the logistic aspects of accessing online peer support (eg, eHealth literacy and access to high-speed internet); and need factors, which are the most immediate causes of seeking online peer support. We also collected data on caregivers' experiences with accessing online communities. We distributed the survey link on November 14, 2022, within two online locations: the Alzheimer's Association website (as an advertisement) and ALZConnected (an online community organized by the Alzheimer's Association). We collected all responses on February 23, 2023, and conducted a regression analysis to identifyn factors that were associated with accessing online peer support. Results: We collected responses from 172 dementia caregivers. Of these participants, 140 (81.4%) completed the entire survey. These caregivers were aged 19 to 87 (mean 54, SD 13.5) years, and a majority were female (123/140, 87.9%) and White (126/140, 90%). Our findings show that the behavior of accessing any online community was significantly associated with participants' belief in the value of online peer support (P=.006). Moreover, of the 40 non-online community caregivers, 33 (83%) had a belief score above 24-the score that was assigned when a neutral option was selected for each belief question. The most common reasons for not accessing any online community were having no time to do so (14/140, 10%) and having insufficient online information-searching skills (9/140, 6.4%). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that online peer support is valuable, but practical strategies are needed to assist informal dementia caregivers who have limited time or online information-searching skills.
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 | 0,000 | 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 | 0,000 | 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) | 0,001 | 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 ».