MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413445415 · doi:10.2196/68333

Internet Access and Use Among Dementia Carers and the People They Support in Australia: Cross-Sectional Survey

2025· article· en· W4413445415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emilie Cameron, Elise Mansfield, Ama Gyamfua Ampofo, Andrea Coda, Allison Boyes

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsCross-sectional studyDementiaThe InternetPsychologyGerontologyMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dementia is a major public health priority due to its increasing prevalence and the considerable burden it places on individuals living with the condition and their carers. Internet-based tools can help carers and the people they support to manage daily tasks, access resources and support, track health data, and connect with health care professionals. However, the benefits of these tools will only be realized if the intended users have access to the internet and are confident in its use. Objective: This study aimed to examine the patterns of internet access and use among dementia carers in Australia and the people they support. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of carers providing informal support to a person diagnosed with dementia and living in the community was conducted. Carers were recruited through geriatric clinics, aged care providers, and community organizations between July 2018 and June 2020. Consenting carers self-completed a multitopic survey that included study-specific questions about their access to the internet, confidence using the internet, and whether the person with dementia they support was able to use the internet. Multivariate regression analysis identified sociodemographic factors associated with carers' internet access. Results: A total of 172 carers (consent rate 47%) with an average age of 71.8 (SD 10.91) years completed the survey. Most carers (126/155, 81%) had access to the internet; however, 31% (47/153) reported they were not at all confident in using it. The likelihood of carers having access to the internet decreased with carers' age (OR [odds ratio] 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.96; P=.003). Male carers were 4 times more likely to have internet access than female carers (OR 4.32, 95% CI 1.00-18.6; P=.05). Similarly, carers with private health insurance (an indicator of individual socioeconomic status) were 8 times more likely to have internet access than those without private health insurance (OR 8.45, 95% CI 2.74-26; P<.001). Only 17% (29/166) of carers perceived that the person with dementia they support was able to use the internet independently or with assistance. Conclusions: Despite high rates of internet access among carers, significant age, gender, and socioeconomic disparities were found, and a notable proportion lacked confidence in its use. Internet use among people with dementia was limited. The digital disparities identified in this study suggest that targeted training to build digital literacy to effectively use internet resources and co-design new technologies is needed. The findings further highlight that in this digital era, alternative methods to deliver dementia care and resources are essential to accommodate those who are unable to access or are less comfortable using the internet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→