Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13(05): 1181-1193
DOI: 10.1055/a-1962-5583
Research Article

Technology Acceptance of a Mobile Application to Support Family Caregivers in a Long-Term Care Facility

Hector Perez
1   Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
,
Antonio Miguel-Cruz
1   Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
2   Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
3   Glenrose Rehabilitation Research, Innovation & Technology (GRRIT) Hub, Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
,
Christine Daum
1   Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
2   Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
,
Aidan K. Comeau
2   Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
,
Emily Rutledge
1   Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
,
Sharla King
4   Faculty of Education, University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
,
Lili Liu
1   Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Alberta Innovates (AI) and The Centre for Aging + Brain Health Innovation (CABHI). Agreement Number: G2019000525. Obtained by Lili Liu as Principal Investigator.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Family caregivers are unpaid individuals who provide care to people with chronic conditions or disabilities. Family caregivers generally do not have formal care-related training. However, they are an essential source of care. Mobile technologies can benefit family caregivers by strengthening communication with care staff and supporting the monitoring of care recipients.

Objective We conducted a mixed-method study to evaluate the acceptance and usability of a mobile technology called the Smart Care System.

Methods Using convenience sampling, we recruited 27 family caregivers to evaluate the mobile Smart Care System (mSCS). In the quantitative phase, we administered initial and exit questionnaires based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. In the qualitative phase, we conducted focus groups to explore family caregivers' perspectives and opinions on the usability of the mSCS. With the quantitative data, we employed univariate, bivariate, and partial least squares analyses, and we used content analysis with the qualitative data.

Results We observed a high level of comfort using digital technologies among participants. On average, participants were caregivers for an average of 6.08 years (standard deviation [SD] = 6.63), and their mean age was 56.65 years (SD = 11.62). We observed a high level of technology acceptance among family caregivers (7.69, SD = 2.11). Behavioral intention (β = 0.509, p-value = 0.004) and facilitating conditions (β = 0.310, p-value = 0.049) were statistically significant and related to usage behavior. In terms of qualitative results, participants reported that the mobile application supported care coordination and communication with staff and provided peace of mind to family caregivers.

Conclusion The technology showed high technology acceptance and intention to use among family caregivers in a long-term care setting. Facilitating conditions influenced acceptance. Therefore, it would be important to identify and optimize these conditions to ensure technology uptake.

Keywords

Technology - Mobile Technologies - Caregivers - Older Adults - Long-Term Care - Usability - Evaluation - Mixed Methods

Author Contributions

A.M.C. and L.L. led the overall design of the evaluation. C.D. also contributed to the plan. E.R. and A.C. conducted the data analysis supervised by A.M.C. and H.P. H.P., C.D., A.M.C., and E.R. led the data collection and implementation of the evaluation. H.P. and A.M.C. drafted the manuscript, and C.D., E.R., S.,K, A.C., and L.L. edited and contributed to the manuscript. L.L. was the principal investigator and the grant holder of this study.


Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and was reviewed and approved by the University of Alberta Institutional Review Board, protocol no.: Pro00095093.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 12 June 2022

Accepted: 15 October 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
18 October 2022

Article published online:
21 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Ritchie H, Roser M. Age structure—our world in data. OurWorldInData.org. Published 2019. Accessed April 12, 2022 at: https://ourworldindata.org/age-structure
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 World Health Organization. Ageing and health. Published October 4, 2021. Accessed April 12, 2022 at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 OECD. Health at a Glance 2021. OECD; 2021. DOI: 10.1787/ae3016b9-en
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Arriagada P. The experiences and needs of older caregivers in Canada. Insights on Canadian Society. Published November 24, 2020. Accessed April 12, 2022 at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2020001/article/00007-eng.htm
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 AARP, National Alliance for Caregiving. Caregiving in the United States 2020. 2020. AARP DOI: 10.26419/ppi.00103.001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 National Alliance for Caregiving, AARP, National Alliance for Caregiving, AARP. Caregiving in the U.S. 2020: a focused look at family caregivers of adults age 50 + . Research Report. 2020 DOI: 10.26419/ppi.00103.022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 AARP, National Alliance for Caregiving. Caregiving in the U.S. 2020. 2020 DOI: 10.26419/ppi.00103.001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 National Alliance for Caregiving. AARP. Caregiving in the U.S. 2020: a focused look at family caregivers of adults age 50 + . 2020 DOI: 10.26419/ppi.00103.022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 OECD. Care needed. OECD; 2018. DOI: 10.1787/9789264085107-en
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Family Caregiver Alliance. Caregiver Statistics: demographics. family caregiver alliance. Published 2016. Accessed March 18, 2022. Doi: https://www.caregiver.org/resource/caregiver-statistics-demographics/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Verbakel E, Metzelthin SF, Kempen GIJM. Caregiving to older adults: determinants of informal caregivers' subjective well-being and formal and informal support as alleviating conditions. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2018; 73 (06) 1099-1111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 OECD. Who Cares? Attracting and retaining elderly care workers. OECD; 2020. DOI: 10.1787/92c0ef68-en
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 OECD, World Health Organization. Pricing long-term care for older persons. OECD; 2021. DOI: 10.1787/a25246a6-en
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sun V, Puts M, Haase K. et al. The role of family caregivers in the care of older adults with cancer. Semin Oncol Nurs 2021; 37 (06) 151232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kim G, Allen RS, Wang SY, Park S, Perkins EA, Parmelee P. The relation between multiple informal caregiving roles and subjective physical and mental health status among older adults: do racial/ethnic differences exist?. Gerontologist 2019; 59 (03) 499-508
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Holmes L. “I just felt like I was in a cage”: examining the accounts of returned missing adults with mental health issues. Illn Crisis Loss 2017; 25 (01) 5-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Schulz R, Eden J. Families Caring for an Aging America. Committee on Family Caregiving for Older Adults; Board on Health Care Services; Health and Medicine Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.; 2016. Accessed May 9, 2022 at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK396398/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schulz R, Beach SR, Czaja SJ, Martire LM, Monin JK. Family caregiving for older adults. Annu Rev Psychol 2020; 71: 635-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cohen G, Russo MJ, Campos JA, Allegri RF. Living with dementia: increased level of caregiver stress in times of COVID-19. Int Psychogeriatr 2020; 32 (11) 1377-1381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Vicente J, McKee KJ, Magnusson L, Johansson P, Ekman B, Hanson E. Informal care provision among male and female working carers: findings from a Swedish national survey. PLoS One 2022; 17 (03) e0263396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mehta KK, Leng TL. Experiences of formal and informal caregivers of older persons in Singapore. J Cross Cult Gerontol 2017; 32 (03) 373-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Li J. Predictors of family caregiver burden in Shanghai. J Appl Gerontol 2021; 40 (07) 703-712
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McDaid D, Park AL. Understanding the economic value and impacts on informal carers of people living with mental health conditions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19 (05) 2858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gaugler JE. Family involvement in residential long-term care: a synthesis and critical review. Aging Ment Health 2005; 9 (02) 105-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Williams SW, Zimmerman S, Williams CS. Family caregiver involvement for long-term care residents at the end of life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2012; 67 (05) 595-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Roberts AR, Ishler KJ. Family involvement in the nursing home and perceived resident quality of life. Gerontologist 2018; 58 (06) 1033-1043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tsai PC, Yip PK, Tai JJ, Lou MF. Needs of family caregivers of stroke patients: a longitudinal study of caregivers' perspectives. Patient Prefer Adherence 2015; 9: 449-457
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Wittenberg E, Buller H, Ferrell B, Koczywas M, Borneman T. Understanding family caregiver communication to provide family-centered cancer care. Semin Oncol Nurs 2017; 33 (05) 507-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Iribarren S, Stonbraker S, Suero-Tejeda N. et al. Information, communication, and online tool needs of Hispanic family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Inform Health Soc Care 2019; 44 (02) 115-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Williamson SS, Gorman PN, Jimison HB. A mobile/web app for long distance caregivers of older adults: functional requirements and design implications from a user centered design process. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2014; 2014: 1960-1969
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Whitlatch CJ, Orsulic-Jeras S. Meeting the informational, educational, and psychosocial support needs of persons living with dementia and their family caregivers. Gerontologist 2018; 58 (Suppl 1): S58-S73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Steiner V, Pierce LL, Salvador D. Information needs of family caregivers of people with dementia. Rehabil Nurs 2016; 41 (03) 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Werner NE, Stanislawski B, Marx KA. et al. Getting what they need when they need it. Identifying barriers to information needs of family caregivers to manage dementia-related behavioral symptoms. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (01) 191-205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Strommen J, Fuller H, Sanders GF, Elliott DM. Challenges faced by family caregivers: multiple perspectives on eldercare. J Appl Gerontol 2020; 39 (04) 347-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rathnayake S, Moyle W, Jones C, Calleja P. Co-design of an mHealth application for family caregivers of people with dementia to address functional disability care needs. Inform Health Soc Care 2021; 46 (01) 1-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kinney JM, Kart CS, Murdoch LD, Ziemba TF. Challenges in caregiving and creative solutions: using technology to facilitate caring for a relative with dementia. Ageing Int 2003; 28 (03) 295-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Block L, Gilmore-Bykovskyi A, Jolliff A, Mullen S, Werner NE. Exploring dementia family caregivers' everyday use and appraisal of technological supports. Geriatr Nurs 2020; 41 (06) 909-915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kinney J, Kart C. Not quite a panacea: technology to facilitate family caregiving for elders with dementia. Gener J Am Soc Aging 2006; 30 (02) 64-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lindberg B, Nilsson C, Zotterman D, Söderberg S, Skär L. Using information and communication technology in home care for communication between patients, family members, and healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Int J Telemed Appl 2013; 2013: 461829
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Perez H, Neubauer N, Marshall S, Philip S, Miguel-Cruz A, Liu L. Barriers and benefits of information communication technologies used by health care aides. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (01) 270-286
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Chi NC, Demiris G. A systematic review of telehealth tools and interventions to support family caregivers. J Telemed Telecare 2015; 21 (01) 37-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bastoni S, Wrede C, da Silva MC. et al. Factors influencing implementation of eHealth technologies to support informal dementia care: umbrella review. JMIR Aging 2021; 4 (04) e30841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Koo BM, Vizer LM. Examining mobile technologies to support older adults with dementia through the lens of personhood and human needs: scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7 (11) e15122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Waller A, Dilworth S, Mansfield E, Sanson-Fisher R. Computer and telephone delivered interventions to support caregivers of people with dementia: a systematic review of research output and quality. BMC Geriatr 2017; 17 (01) 265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chu CH, Ronquillo C, Khan S, Hung L, Boscart V. Technology recommendations to support person-centered care in long-term care homes during the COVID-19 Pandemic and beyond. J Aging Soc Policy 2021; 33 (4-5): 539-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lorca-Cabrera J, Grau C, Martí-Arques R, Raigal-Aran L, Falcó-Pegueroles A, Albacar-Riobóo N. Effectiveness of health web-based and mobile app-based interventions designed to improve informal caregiver's well-being and quality of life: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2020; 134: 104003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Xiong C, D'Souza A, El-Khechen-Richandi G. et al. Perceptions of digital technology experiences and development among family caregivers and technology researchers: qualitative study. JMIR Form Res 2022; 6 (01) e19967
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Ruggiano N, Brown EL, Shaw S. et al. The potential of information technology to navigate caregiving systems: perspectives from dementia caregivers. J Gerontol Soc Work 2019; 62 (04) 432-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Lee C, Ward C, Ellis D, Brady S, D'Ambrosio L, Coughlin JF. Technology and service usage among family caregivers. In: Zhou J, Salvendy G. eds. Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications, Services and Contexts. ITAP 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 10298. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017: 420-432
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Demiris G, Washington K, Ulrich CM, Popescu M, Oliver DP. Innovative tools to support family caregivers of persons with cancer: the role of information technology. Semin Oncol Nurs 2019; 35 (04) 384-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Project Catalys. HITLAB. Designing technology for caregivers: understanding what works and doesn't.; 2018
    PubMed
  • 52 Désormeaux-Moreau M, Michel CM, Vallières M. et al. Mobile apps to support family caregivers of people with Alzheimer disease and related dementias in managing disruptive behaviors: qualitative study with users embedded in a scoping review. JMIR Aging 2021; 4 (02) e21808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Veiga-Seijo R, Miranda-Duro MDC, Veiga-Seijo S. Strategies and actions to enable meaningful family connections in nursing homes during the COVID-19: a scoping review. Clin Gerontol 2022; 45 (01) 20-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Faieta JM, Negm A, Sood P, Beleno R, Heyn PC. American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine COVID and Frailty Task force of the Geriatric Rehabilitation Networking Group and the Alzheimer's Disease Task Force of the Neurodegenerative Diseases Networking Group members. Technology for remote caregiving: a guide for caregivers providing care at a distance. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2021; 102 (10) 2055-2059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Hajjar L, Kragen B. Timely communication through telehealth: added value for a caregiver during COVID-19. Front Public Health 2021; 9: 755391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Savoldelli A, Vitali A, Remuzzi A, Giudici V. Improving the user experience of televisits and telemonitoring for heart failure patients in less than 6 months: a methodological approach. Int J Med Inform 2022; 161: 104717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Iaboni A, Quirt H, Engell K. et al. Barriers and facilitators to person-centred infection prevention and control: results of a survey about the Dementia Isolation Toolkit. BMC Geriatr 2022; 22 (01) 74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Tam MT, Dosso JA, Robillard JM. The impact of a global pandemic on persons living with dementia and their care partners: an analysis of 417 survey responses. Alzheimers Dement 2021; 17: e049480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Couture B, Lilley E, Chang F. et al. Applying user-centered design methods to the development of an mhealth application for use in the hospital setting by patients and care partners. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (02) 302-312
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Miguel Cruz A, Lopez Portillo HP, Daum C, Rutledge E, King S, Liu L. Technology acceptance and usability of a mobile app to support the workflow of health care aides who provide services to older adults: pilot mixed methods study. JMIR Aging 2022; 5 (02) e37521
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Venkatesh M, Davis D. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Manage Inf Syst Q 2003; 27 (03) 425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q Manag Inf Syst 2012; 36 (01) 157-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Clinisys EMR. Electronic Medical Records Software. Published 2022. Accessed March 1, 2022 at: https://clinisys.ca/electronic-medical-records/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Creswell J. Mixed methods procedures. In: Creswell J. ed. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2009: 203-224
    Google Scholar
  • 65 Wing Kei Care Centres. Our story. Published 2022. Accessed March 18, 2022 at: https://www.wingkeicarecentre.org/about/our-story
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Hair FJ, Hult MGT, Ringle MC, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed.. CA: SAGE Publications Inc.; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 67 Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 3rd ed.. Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 68 Liu L, Miguel Cruz A, Ruptash T, Barnard S, Juzwishin D. Acceptance of global positioning system (gps) technology among dementia clients and family caregivers. J Technol Hum Serv 2017; 35 (02) 99-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Miguel Cruz A, Daum C, Comeau A. et al. Acceptance, adoption, and usability of information and communication technologies for people living with dementia and their care partners: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2020; DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2020.1864671.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Liu L, Miguel Cruz A, Juzwishin D. Caregivers as a proxy for responses of dementia clients in a GPS technology acceptance study. Behav Inf Technol 2018; 37 (06) 634-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Portney LG. Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice. 4th ed.. FA Davis.; 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 72 Morse JM. Determining sample size. Qual Health Res 2000; 10 (01) 3-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Stephens MA. EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 1974; 69 (347) 730-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965; 52 (3–4): 591-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev 2019; 31 (01) 2-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Diamantopoulos A, Sarstedt M, Fuchs C, Wilczynski P, Kaiser S. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. J Acad Mark Sci 2012; 40 (03) 434-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Danks NP, Ray S. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R. Springer International Publishing; 2021
    Google Scholar
  • 78 Cheah JH, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Ramayah T, Ting H. Convergent validity assessment of formatively measured constructs in PLS-SEM: on using single-item versus multi-item measures in redundancy analyses. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 2018; 30 (11) 3192-3210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH. Published 2015. Accessed March 18, 2022 at: https://www.smartpls.com./
    PubMed
  • 80 Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15 (09) 1277-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Mayan MJ. Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Routledge; 2016
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Binyamin SS, Zafar BA. Proposing a mobile apps acceptance model for users in the health area: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Health Informatics J 2021; 27 (01) 1460458220976737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Liu L, Miguel Cruz A, Rios Rincon A, Buttar V, Ranson Q, Goertzen D. What factors determine therapists' acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation—a study using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Disabil Rehabil 2015; 37 (05) 447-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Hoque R, Sorwar G. Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth by the elderly: an extension of the UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform 2017; 101 (101) 75-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Dai B, Larnyo E, Tetteh EA, Aboagye AK, Musah A-AI. Factors affecting caregivers' acceptance of the use of wearable devices by patients with dementia: an extension of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2020; 35: 1533317519883493
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Chan F, Thong J, Venkatesh V, Brown S, Hu P, Tam K. Modeling citizen satisfaction with mandatory adoption of an e-government technology. J Assoc Inf Syst 2010; 11 (10) 519-549
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Chen K, Lou VWQ, Lo SSC. Exploring the acceptance of tablets usage for cognitive training among older people with cognitive impairments: a mixed-methods study. Appl Ergon 2021; 93: 103381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Adjei TK, Mohammed A, Acheampong PR. et al. Determinants of a mobile phone-based Interactive Voice Response (mIVR) system for monitoring childhood illnesses in a rural district of Ghana: empirical evidence from the UTAUT model. PLoS One 2021; 16 (03) e0248363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Shafer JS, Haley KL, Jacks A. Accessing information and adapting to the role of care partner for stroke survivors with aphasia during the early Covid-19 pandemic. Aphasiology 2022; DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2022.2059055.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Washington KT, Meadows SE, Elliott SG, Koopman RJ. Information needs of informal caregivers of older adults with chronic health conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2011; 83 (01) 37-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Moberg C, Grundberg Å, Konradsen H, Kallström AP, Leung AY, Kabir ZN. Meeting own needs and supporting ability to care: family caregivers' and health care professionals' perspectives on professional support provided through a potential mobile application. Dementia 2022; 21 (04) 1120-1134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Mendez KJW, Budhathoki C, Labrique AB, Sadak T, Tanner EK, Han HR. Factors associated with intention to adopt mhealth apps among dementia caregivers with a chronic condition: cross-sectional, correlational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021; 9 (08) e27926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Fischer T, Jobst M. Capturing the spatial relatedness of long-distance caregiving: a mixed-methods approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17 (17) 6406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Wang J, Fu Y, Lou V, Tan SY, Chui E. A systematic review of factors influencing attitudes towards and intention to use the long-distance caregiving technologies for older adults. Int J Med Inform 2021; 153 (July): 104536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Hindmarch W, McGhan G, Flemons K, McCaughey D. COVID-19 and long-term care: the essential role of family caregivers. Can Geriatr J 2021; 24 (03) 195-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Greenberg NE, Wallick A, Brown LM. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on community-dwelling caregivers and persons with dementia. Psychol Trauma 2020; 12 (S1): S220-S221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Lightfoot E, Moone R, Suleiman K. et al. Concerns of family caregivers during COVID-19: the concerns of caregivers and the surprising silver linings. J Gerontol Soc Work 2021; 64 (06) 656-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Schlaudecker JD. Essential family caregivers in long-term care during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2020; 21 (07) 983
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Tan YR, Tan MP, Khor MM. et al. Acceptance of virtual consultations among older adults and caregivers in Malaysia: a pilot study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Postgrad Med 2022; 134 (02) 224-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Gupta V, Raj M, Hoodin F, Yahng L, Braun T, Choi SW. Electronic health record portal use by family caregivers of patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation: United States National Survey study. JMIR Cancer 2021; 7 (01) e26509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Mejía ST, Su TT, Lan Q, Zou A, Griffin A, Sosnoff JJ. The context of caring and concern for falling differentiate which mobile fall technology features Chinese family caregivers find most important. J Appl Gerontol 2022; 41 (04) 1175-1185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Tennant R, Allana S, Mercer K, Burns CM. Exploring the experiences of family caregivers of children with special health care needs to inform the design of digital health systems: formative qualitative study. JMIR Form Res 2022; 6 (01) e28895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Darley A, Coughlan B, Furlong E. People with cancer and their family caregivers' personal experience of using supportive eHealth technology: a narrative review. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2021; 54: 102030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Morris ME. Enhancing relationships through technology: directions in parenting, caregiving, romantic partnerships, and clinical practice. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2020; 22 (02) 151-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Raj M, Iott B, Anthony D, Platt J. Family caregivers' experiences with telehealth during COVID-19: insights from Michigan. Ann Fam Med 2022; 20 (01) 69-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Ottaviani AC, Monteiro DQ, Oliveira D. et al. Usability and acceptability of internet-based interventions for family carers of people living with dementia: systematic review. Aging Ment Health 2022; 26 (10) 1922-1932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Asan O, Holden RJ, Flynn KE, Yang Y, Azam L, Scanlon MC. Provider use of a novel EHR display in the pediatric intensive care unit. Large customizable interactive monitor (LCIM). Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (03) 682-692
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Chiu TML, Eysenbach G. Theorizing the health service usage behavior of family caregivers: a qualitative study of an internet-based intervention. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (11) 754-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Abraham J, King CR, Meng A. Ascertaining design requirements for postoperative care transition interventions. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (01) 107-115
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Hoonakker PLT, Rankin RJ, Passini JC. et al. Nurses' expectations of an inpatient portal for hospitalized patients and caregivers. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (04) 625-633
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Christie HL, Bartels SL, Boots LMM, Tange HJ, Verhey FJJ, de Vugt ME. A systematic review on the implementation of eHealth interventions for informal caregivers of people with dementia. Internet Interv 2018; 13: 51-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar