| Literature DB >> 28116300 |
Laura Núñez-Naveira1, Begoña Alonso-Búa1, Carmen de Labra1, Rikke Gregersen2, Kirsten Maibom2, Ewa Mojs3, Agnieszka Krawczyk-Wasielewska4, José Carlos Millán-Calenti5.
Abstract
Information and communications technology (ICT) could support ambient assisted living (AAL) based interventions to provide support to informal caregivers of people with dementia, especially when they need to cope with their feelings of overburden or isolation. An e-learning platform (understAID application) was tested by informal caregivers from Denmark, Poland, and Spain to explore the technical and the pedagogical specifications, as well as evaluating the impact of its use on the psychological status of the participants. 61 informal caregivers completed the study taking part in the experimental (n = 30) or control (n = 31) groups. 33.3% of the caregivers were satisfied with the application and around 50% of the participants assessed it as technically and pedagogically acceptable. After using understAID the caregivers in the experimental group significantly decreased their depressive symptomatology according to the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale, but a possible benefit on their feelings of competence and satisfaction with the caring experience was also observed. The low scores obtained for satisfaction were highlighting issues that need to be modified to meet the informal caregivers' needs in national, social, and cultural context. Some possible biases are also considered and discussed to be taken into account in future improvements of understAID application.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28116300 PMCID: PMC5225394 DOI: 10.1155/2016/5726465
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Evaluation of technical specifications by sentence and overall.
| Technical specifications questionnaire |
| Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| PC | 15 (50.0) | 4.20 ± 1.01 |
| Tablet | 8 (26.7) | 3.25 ± 1.28 |
| Smartphone | 7 (0.0) | 3.86 ± 0.38 |
| Total | 30 (100.0) | 3.87 ± 1.04 |
|
| ||
| PC | 15 (50.0) | 4.40 ± 0.74 |
| Tablet | 8 (26.7) | 3.63 ± 1.51 |
| Smartphone | 7 (0.0) | 3.86 ± 0.69 |
| Total | 30 (100.0) | 4.07 ± 1.02 |
|
| ||
| PC | 15 (51.7) | 4.27 ± 0.88 |
| Tablet | 8 (27.6) | 3.63 ± 1.06 |
| Smartphone | 6 (20.7) | 3.67 ± 0.82 |
| Total | 29 (100.0) | 3.97 ± 0.94 |
|
| ||
| PC | 15 (50.0) | 4.20 ± 0.94 |
| Tablet | 8 (26.7) | 3.38 ± 1.06 |
| Smartphone | 7 (0.0) | 3.86 ± 0.90 |
| Total | 30 (100.0) | 3.90 ± 1.00 |
|
| ||
| PC | 15 (50.0) | 4.13 ± 0.92 |
| Tablet | 8 (26.7) | 3.25 ± 1.28 |
| Smartphone | 7 (0.0) | 4.00 ± 0.58 |
| Total | 30 (100.0) | 3.87 ± 1.01 |
|
| ||
| PC | 15 (50.0) | 4.47 ± 0.64 |
| Tablet | 8 (26.7) | 3.88 ± 1.55 |
| Smartphone | 7 (0.0) | 3.86 ± 0.69 |
| Total | 30 (100.0) | 4.17 ± 0.99 |
|
| ||
| PC | 14 (48.3) | 4.29 ± 0.91 |
| Tablet | 8 (27.6) | 3.38 ± 1.30 |
| Smartphone | 7 (24.1) | 3.71 ± 0.76 |
| Total | 29 (100.0) | 3.90 ± 1.05 |
|
| ||
| PC | 13 (46.4) | 3.85 ± 1.14 |
| Tablet | 8 (28.6) | 3.38 ± 1.06 |
| Smartphone | 7 (25.0) | 3.57 ± 0.54 |
| Total | 28 (100.0) | 3.64 ± 0.99 |
|
| ||
| PC | 12 (50.0) | 3.92 ± 1.00 |
| Tablet | 6 (25.5) | 3.50 ± 1.05 |
| Smartphone | 6 (25.5) | 3.33 ± 0.52 |
| Total | 24 (100.0) | 3.67 ± 0.92 |
|
| ||
| PC | 15 (50.0) | 3.87 ± 1.13 |
| Tablet | 8 (26.7) | 4.00 ± 1.07 |
| Smartphone | 7 (0.0) | 3.57 ± 0.54 |
| Total | 30 (100.0) | 3.83 ± 0.99 |
|
| ||
| PC | 13 (48.1) | 3.85 ± 0.99 |
| Tablet | 8 (29.6) | 3.88 ± 0.99 |
| Smartphone | 6 (22.2) | 4.00 ± 0.63 |
| Total | 27 (100.0) | 3.89 ± 0.89 |
|
| ||
| Overall evaluation of technical specifications | Acceptable | Unacceptable |
|
| ||
| PC | 8 (53.3) | 7 (46.7) |
| Tablet | 4 (50.0) | 4 (50.0) |
| Smartphone | 2 (28.6) | 5 (71.4) |
| Total | 14 (46.7) | 16 (53.3) |
PC: personal computer, SD: standard deviation.
Evaluation of pedagogical specifications by sentence and overall.
| Pedagogical specifications questionnaire |
| Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| It has been easy for me to find the materials that I need | 27 (90.0) | 3.48 ± 0.98 |
| I have filled in the customization questionnaire and let the application suggest content | 26 (86.7) | 4.23 ± 0.99 |
| I have used the search function | 25 (83.3) | 2.88 ± 1.30 |
| I have browsed for content (looked at list of contents) | 29 (96.7) | 3.72 ± 1.16 |
|
| ||
| My needs related to the care of my relative | 30 (100.0) | 3.40 ± 1.22 |
| My own life situation | 28 (93.3) | 3.29 ± 1.21 |
| My preferences for learning and working with the application (I prefer to learn with texts, or audio, etc.) | 28 (93.3) | 3.25 ± 1.18 |
| My level of energy and resources to learn something new right now | 29 (96.7) | 3.24 ± 1.02 |
|
| ||
| I have used the application's possibilities to consult contents adapted to my relative or to my desires for reading/learning new contents as well as customizing my learning experience (different detail levels, dementia stages, personal notes in contents, and so on) | 30 (100.0) | 3.17 ± 1.21 |
|
| ||
| I have found it useful that my “last visited content/page” is presented to me on each entry to the application | 27 (90.0) | 3.63 ± 1.18 |
| I have found it useful that my previous actions in the application are shown on entry | 25 (83.3) | 3.48 ± 1.30 |
|
| ||
| The application helped me to overcome challenges I experience in my daily life when dealing with my relative | 26 (86.7) | 2.92 ± 1.09 |
| The application helped me to overcome challenges I experience in my daily life in relation to my own life situation | 26 (86.7) | 2.77 ± 1.11 |
| The application has helped me understand better the illness as well as the current situation and needs of my relative | 27 (90.0) | 3.44 ± 1.25 |
| The application has provided me with all the information that I needed | 27 (90.0) | 2.85 ± 1.13 |
|
| ||
| After using the application, I have become more confident about the care and help I give to my relative | 26 (86.7) | 2.88 ± 1.24 |
|
| ||
| The way that the application displays the content (texts, images, videos, audio) made me want to learn more | 26 (86.7) | 2.85 ± 1.16 |
|
| ||
| I find it useful to communicate with other users on the platform | 22 (73.3) | 2.32 ± 1.43 |
|
| ||
| Medication calendar and reminder | 16 (53.3) | 2.06 ± 1.24 |
| Appointments calendar and reminder (doctor, pharmacy, and others) | 16 (53.3) | 2.06 ± 1.24 |
|
| ||
| Overall evaluation of pedagogical specifications |
| |
|
| ||
| Acceptable | 15 (50.0) | |
| Unacceptable | 15 (50.0) | |
SD: standard deviation.
Evaluation of satisfaction specifications by sentence and overall.
| Satisfaction questionnaire |
| Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| I have changed my attitude with my relative with dementia to a more positive one | 26 (86.7) | 2.92 ± 1.02 |
| I will ask for help to any of my close relatives when taking care of my relative with dementia after using the understAID application | 26 (86.7) | 2.50 ± 1.27 |
| I have more time for myself after using the understAID application | 26 (86.7) | 2.12 ± 0.91 |
| I think that in general the understAID application is usefulness for me and my relative | 28 (93.3) | 2.79 ± 1.13 |
| In general, I feel satisfied with the understAID application | 28 (93.3) | 3.25 ± 1.04 |
|
| ||
| Overall evaluation of satisfaction |
| |
|
| ||
| Acceptable | 10 (33.3) | |
| Unacceptable | 20 (66.7) | |
SD: standard deviation.
Figure 1Flow of selection for the participants. Ctr.: Control, DK: Denmark, ES: Spain, Exp.: Experimental, PL: Poland.
Characteristics of the study sample.
| Total | Control group | Experimental group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61 (100.0) | 31 (50.8) | 30 (49.2) | |
|
| |||
| Male | 22 (36.1) | 13 (41.9) | 9 (30.0) |
| Female | 39 (63.9) | 18 (58.1) | 21 (70.0) |
|
| |||
| Physical labour | 13 (21.3) | 7 (22.6) | 6 (20.0) |
| Intellectual labour | 25 (41.0) | 15 (48.4) | 10 (33.3) |
| Unemployed | 5 (8.2) | 4 (12.9) | 1 (3.3) |
| Retired | 18 (29.5) | 5 (16.1) | 13 (43.4) |
|
| |||
| Loss of professional career (yes) | 9 (14.8) | 4 (12.9) | 5 (16.7) |
| Change in working shift (yes) | 23 (37.7) | 13 (41.9) | 10 (33.3) |
|
| |||
| <20 | 35 (57.4) | 18 (58.1) | 17 (56.7) |
| ≥20 | 26 (42.6) | 13 (41.9) | 13 (43.3) |
|
| |||
| Yes | 59 (96.7) | 31 (100.0) | 28 (93.3) |
|
| |||
| General practitioner | 24 (39.3) | 12 (38.7) | 12 (40.0) |
| Dementia supervisor | 8 (13.1) | 1 (3.2) | 7 (23.3) |
| Relatives/friends | 27 (44.3) | 11 (35.5) | 16 (53.3) |
| Home services | 7 (11.5) | 3 (9.7) | 4 (13.3) |
| Telecare | 1 (1.6) | 1 (3.2) | 0 (0.0) |
| Day-care center | 27 (44.3) | 13 (41.9) | 14 (46.7) |
| Respite care | 19 (31.1) | 14 (45.2) | 5 (16.7) |
| Self-help groups | 1 (1.6) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.3) |
| Local parish | 3 (4.9) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (10.0) |
|
| |||
| Never | 22 (36.1) | 7 (22.6) | 15 (50.0) |
| Sometimes | 23 (37.7) | 9 (29.0) | 14 (46.7) |
| Frequently | 16 (26.2) | 15 (48.4) | 1 (3.3) |
|
| |||
| GDS4 | 19 (31.1) | 7 (22.6) | 12 (40.0) |
| GDS5 | 22 (36.1) | 10 (32.3) | 12 (40.0) |
| GDS6 | 16 (26.2) | 11 (35.5) | 5 (16.7) |
| GDS7 | 4 (6.6) | 3 (9.7) | 1 (3.3) |
|
| |||
| Very good | 6 (9.8) | 1 (3.2) | 5 (16.7) |
| Good | 25 (41.0) | 16 (51.6) | 9 (30.0) |
| Fair | 29 (47.5) | 13 (41.9) | 16 (53.3) |
| Poor | 1 (1.6) | 1 (3.2) | 0 (0.0) |
|
| |||
| 0 | 35 (57.4) | 16 (51.6) | 19 (63.3) |
| 1 | 17 (27.9) | 10 (32.3) | 7 (23.3) |
| 2 | 6 (9.8) | 3 (9.7) | 3 (10.0) |
| 3 | 3 (4.9) | 2 (6.5) | 1 (3.3) |
|
| 44.92 ± 11.00 | 47.55 ± 10.02 | 42.20 ± 11.46 |
GDS: Global Deterioration Scale.
Statistically significant differences, P < 0.05.
Impact on the caregiver after using the understAID application.
| Control group ( | Experimental group ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preintervention | Postintervention |
|
| Preintervention | Postintervention |
|
| |
| CES-D | 21.42 ± 8.64 | 20.77 ± 9.02 | 0.548 | 0.587 | 19.40 ± 9.03 | 17.03 ± 7.07 | 2.180 | 0.037 |
| CCS | 11.03 ± 2.24 | 10.97 ± 2.60 | 0.135 | 0.893 | 11.93 ± 2.61 | 11.70 ± 2.18 | 0.754 | 0.457 |
| RCCS | 19.55 ± 6.40 | 19.10 ± 5.71 | 0.644 | 0.525 | 18.67 ± 4.90 | 18.60 ± 4.75 | 0.107 | 0.916 |
CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, CCS: Caregiver Competence Scale, RCCS: Revised Caregiving Satisfaction Scale, and SD: standard deviation.
Statistically significant differences, P < 0.05.