BACKGROUND: The burden associated with caregiving has been well documented. Caregivers have multiple responsibilities, and technology may be accessible as a potential burden-alleviating resource. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed cancer caregivers regarding current technology use and willingness to use technology for easing burden or distress. Because age has been associated with technology use, responses were compared between geriatric (≥65 years old) and nongeriatric (18-64 years old) caregivers. RESULTS: We had 112 respondents. Based on nonmissing responses, 66% (n=71) were women, 95% (n=106) were white, and 84% (n=91) had post-high school education. Almost all caregivers reported having Internet (105 [94%]) and e-mail (102 [91%]) access. Nongeriatric caregivers indicated more willingness to access Internet-based tools that help caregivers (54 [93%] versus 41 [76%]; p=0.04) and were more frequent users of social media (37 [64%] versus 16 [30%]; p=0.01), smartphones (33 [57%] versus 16 [30%]; p=0.01), and other mobile wireless devices (42 [72%] versus 19 [35%]; p<0.001) than geriatric caregivers. They also more frequently expected technologies to improve their own quality of life (p=0.009), increase their feelings of being effective as a caregiver (p=0.02), and save time (p=0.003). Regardless of age, a majority of caregivers (67 [62%]) endorsed the potential benefit of caregiving technologies in preventing burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Most caregivers have high access to and use of technology. Geriatric and nongeriatric caregivers were receptive to technology-based tools to help with their caregiving roles. Although nongeriatric caregivers expected to derive more benefit from such tools, both groups believed that caregiving technologies could reduce burden.
BACKGROUND: The burden associated with caregiving has been well documented. Caregivers have multiple responsibilities, and technology may be accessible as a potential burden-alleviating resource. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed cancer caregivers regarding current technology use and willingness to use technology for easing burden or distress. Because age has been associated with technology use, responses were compared between geriatric (≥65 years old) and nongeriatric (18-64 years old) caregivers. RESULTS: We had 112 respondents. Based on nonmissing responses, 66% (n=71) were women, 95% (n=106) were white, and 84% (n=91) had post-high school education. Almost all caregivers reported having Internet (105 [94%]) and e-mail (102 [91%]) access. Nongeriatric caregivers indicated more willingness to access Internet-based tools that help caregivers (54 [93%] versus 41 [76%]; p=0.04) and were more frequent users of social media (37 [64%] versus 16 [30%]; p=0.01), smartphones (33 [57%] versus 16 [30%]; p=0.01), and other mobile wireless devices (42 [72%] versus 19 [35%]; p<0.001) than geriatric caregivers. They also more frequently expected technologies to improve their own quality of life (p=0.009), increase their feelings of being effective as a caregiver (p=0.02), and save time (p=0.003). Regardless of age, a majority of caregivers (67 [62%]) endorsed the potential benefit of caregiving technologies in preventing burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Most caregivers have high access to and use of technology. Geriatric and nongeriatric caregivers were receptive to technology-based tools to help with their caregiving roles. Although nongeriatric caregivers expected to derive more benefit from such tools, both groups believed that caregiving technologies could reduce burden.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Matthew M Clark; Teresa A Rummans; Pamela J Atherton; Andrea L Cheville; Mary E Johnson; Marlene H Frost; Janis J Miller; Jeff A Sloan; Karen M Graszer; Jean G Haas; Jean M Hanson; Yolanda I Garces; Katherine M Piderman; Maria I Lapid; Pamela J Netzel; Jarrett W Richardson; Paul D Brown Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Maria J Silveira; Charles W Given; Kemp B Cease; Alla Sikorskii; Barbara Given; Laurel L Northouse; John D Piette Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2011-11-25 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Nadine Köhle; Constance H C Drossaert; Peter M Ten Klooster; Karlein M G Schreurs; Mariët Hagedoorn; Cornelia F Van Uden-Kraan; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Ernst T Bohlmeijer Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hanna Allemann; Ingela Thylén; Susanna Ågren; Maria Liljeroos; Anna Strömberg Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ji Youn Shin; Dima Chaar; Jacob Kedroske; Rebecca Vue; Grant Chappell; Amanda Mazzoli; Afton L Hassett; David A Hanauer; Sun Young Park; Barton Debra; Sung Won Choi Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2020-12-05
Authors: Elin Børøsund; Jelena Mirkovic; Matthew M Clark; Shawna L Ehlers; Michael A Andrykowski; Anne Bergland; Marianne Westeng; Lise Solberg Nes Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2018-09-06
Authors: Erik Baltaxe; Cristina Embid; Eva Aumatell; María Martínez; Anael Barberan-Garcia; John Kelly; John Eaglesham; Carmen Herranz; Eloisa Vargiu; Josep Maria Montserrat; Josep Roca; Isaac Cano Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 4.773