Potential assistive technology preferences of informal caregivers of people with disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Preferences of informal caregivers of people with neurocognitive disorders for technological solutions are important in user- centered design approaches. It is crucial to take into consideration the needs and preferences of users when developing new technology to facilitate their uptake. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine caregiver preferences for potential technological solutions to help address their needs and compare technology preferences of caregivers who provide care to those with and without neurocognitive disorders (NCD). Methods: This was a quantitative descriptive study. We surveyed informal caregivers of older adults with disability in Canada. Participants were asked to answer questions about their preferences for 10 potential technological solutions that could be developed to make caregiving easier. Results: Data from 125 respondents (72 caregivers of people with NCD and 53 caregivers of people with non-NCD-related disabilities) were analyzed. Generally, caregivers preferred web-based solutions as these were among the first five choices for both groups combined. However, there were some differences in the order of preference of potential solutions in both groups. Conclusion: Informal caregivers of people with NCD preferred web-based solutions to help address their 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".