MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729369463 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.2844

TECHNOLOGY PERCEPTIONS AMONG CHINESE FAMILY CAREGIVERS OF PERSONS WITH DEMENTIA: A SEX-GENDER LENS

2017· article· en· W2729369463 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Sixsmith, Arlene Astell, Lili Liu, Alex Mihailidis, Angela Colantonio

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPerceptionFamily caregiversPsychologyPopulationHealth technologyGerontologyTest (biology)MedicineHealth careEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dementia is a major public health concern associated with significant caregiver demands. While technologies are available to assist with caregiving, there is a paucity of information on caregiver needs and preferences for these technologies, especially among Chinese family caregivers of persons with dementia. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the technology needs and preferences of Chinese family caregivers of persons with dementia in Canada. Methods: A cross-sectional pilot survey was conducted through the Yee Hong Centre of Geriatric Care in Ontario, Canada in English and Mandarin. Respondents could complete the questionnaire over the phone, internet, or by mail. Frequency distributions, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test and multiple regression analyses were used to examine difference by sex/gender.. Results: The majority of the 40 respondents to date did not demonstrate knowledge about technology that can assist with caregiving. Ease of installation and reliability were identified as the most important features when installing and using technology. Despite little knowledge about technology, respondents demonstrated a positive attitude towards technology use during caregiving. Controlling for age, female respondents were significantly more receptive to technology compared to males. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a need to increase awareness of technology options to assist with caregiving in this population. They provide insights for future development and marketing of technologies that better align with the needs and preferences of male and female caregivers. Further exploration of additional environmental and social influences on technology perception is warranted to better understand and tailor technologies for this population.

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)0.000
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207