MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621882532 · doi:10.1177/2055668318775315

Needs and preferences for technology among Chinese family caregivers of persons with dementia: A pilot study

2018· article· en· W2621882532 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chen Xiong, Arlene Astell, Alex Mihailidis, Angela Colantonio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health SciencesToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissement
KeywordsDementiaFamily caregiversGerontologyEthnic groupPsychologyPopulationMedicineFamily medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a major public health concern associated with significant caregiver demands and there are technologies available to assist with caregiving. However, there is a paucity of information on caregiver needs and preferences for these technologies, especially among Chinese family caregivers of persons with dementia in Canada. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the technology needs and preferences of Chinese family caregivers of persons with dementia with a sex and gender lens in Canada. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted through the Yee Hong Centre of Geriatric Care in Canada. Frequency distributions, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, and multiple regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: The majority of the 40 respondents did not demonstrate knowledge about technology to assist with caregiving. Ease of installation and reliability were identified as the most important features when installing and using technology respectively. Respondents demonstrated a positive attitude towards the use of technology during caregiving. Controlling for age, female respondents were significantly more receptive of technology. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a need to increase awareness of technology options to assist caregiving in this ethnic population and provide insight for future development and marketing of technology that better align with caregivers' needs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies EngineeringSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207