Perceptions and Utilization of Online Peer Support Among Informal Dementia Caregivers: Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Informal dementia caregivers are those who care for a person living with dementia and do not receive payment (eg, family members, friends, or other unpaid caregivers). These informal caregivers are subject to substantial mental, physical, and financial burdens. Online communities enable these caregivers to exchange caregiving strategies and communicate experiences with other caregivers whom they generally do not know in real life. Research has demonstrated the benefits of peer support in online communities, but this research is limited, focusing merely on caregivers who are already online community users. Objective: We aimed to investigate the perceptions and utilization of online peer support through a survey. Methods: Following the Andersen and Newman Framework of Health Services Utilization and using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), we designed and administered a survey to investigate the perceptions and utilization of online peer support among informal dementia caregivers. Specifically, we collected types of information that influence whether an informal dementia caregiver accesses online peer support: predisposing factors, which refer to the sociocultural characteristics of caregivers, relationships between caregivers and people living with dementia, and belief in the value of online peer support; enabling factors, which refer to the logistic aspects of accessing online peer support (eg, eHealth literacy and access to high-speed internet); and need factors, which are the most immediate causes of seeking online peer support. We also collected data on caregivers' experiences with accessing online communities. We distributed the survey link on November 14, 2022, within two online locations: the Alzheimer's Association website (as an advertisement) and ALZConnected (an online community organized by the Alzheimer's Association). We collected all responses on February 23, 2023, and conducted a regression analysis to identifyn factors that were associated with accessing online peer support. Results: We collected responses from 172 dementia caregivers. Of these participants, 140 (81.4%) completed the entire survey. These caregivers were aged 19 to 87 (mean 54, SD 13.5) years, and a majority were female (123/140, 87.9%) and White (126/140, 90%). Our findings show that the behavior of accessing any online community was significantly associated with participants' belief in the value of online peer support (P=.006). Moreover, of the 40 non-online community caregivers, 33 (83%) had a belief score above 24-the score that was assigned when a neutral option was selected for each belief question. The most common reasons for not accessing any online community were having no time to do so (14/140, 10%) and having insufficient online information-searching skills (9/140, 6.4%). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that online peer support is valuable, but practical strategies are needed to assist informal dementia caregivers who have limited time or online information-searching skills.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".