Technology implementation in care practices for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive decline: Perspectives of professional caregivers in Quebec and Brussels
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: As worldwide population aging is accelerating, innovative technologies are being developed to support independent living among community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive decline. However, the successful implementation of these interventions is often challenging. Until now, literature on implementation issues related to the specific context of older adults with mild cognitive decline is lacking and the few studies available do not focus specifically on the perspective of professional caregivers. Yet the perspective of these caregivers is important as they can be considered a key facilitator for technology implementation among this population. Therefore, this study was the first to examine technology implementation among community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive decline from the broader perspective of professional caregivers. Methods: = 8). Braun and Clarke' method for thematic analysis, guided by a qualitative descriptive approach was applied to inductively identify themes from the data. Results: We identified factors influencing technology implementation in older adults with mild cognitive decline on three levels: an individual level (e.g., characteristics of older adults with mild cognitive decline and professional caregivers' attitude), an organizational level (e.g., lack of training among professional caregivers) and a level referring to the broader context (e.g., ethical considerations). Conclusions: This study contributes to the research gap in knowledge on the needs of professional caregivers to facilitate technology implementation among the population of older adults with cognitive decline. Future directions for research, practice, and policy are given, more specifically to improve knowledge among caregivers and on the development of decision support to retrieve safe and effective technologies that suit patient-centered care.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it