Information and Communication Technologies to Support the Provision of Respite Care Services: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Respite care is one of the most frequently requested support services by family caregivers. Yet, too often, respite care services are inaccessible, due in part to families’ lack of knowledge regarding available services and a lack of service flexibility. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) may help to improve the flexibility of services available and families’ knowledge of such services. However, an understanding of the use of ICTs and research in this area is lacking. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the academic literature on ICTs for supporting the provision of respite care services. METHODS A scoping review study was conducted. Six library databases were systematically searched for relevant literature. Key data were extracted into a summary chart. Text and quantitative data were coded using descriptive qualitative content analysis techniques, and the results were collated and summarized into a comprehensive narrative. RESULTS A total of 23 papers describing 15 unique ICT programs exploring the potential of ICTs to support respite care services met the inclusion criteria. ICTs supported the provision of respite care by facilitating information-sharing with families and providers, recruiting and training respite care providers, and coordinating services. Key design considerations for developing respite care ICTs were trustworthiness and participatory design methods. Implementation considerations included designing for complementarity with existing services, assessing the appropriate timing for introducing the ICT-based services, and ensuring adequate promotion strategies to raise awareness about the services. CONCLUSIONS There is limited but promising research on the potential of ICTs to support the provision of respite care services. Further research should be conducted to advance the results of this review, ultimately aiming to build ICTs that can improve the quality of, and access to, respite care services.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".