3.8 Article

The perceptions of cognitively impaired patients and their caregivers of a home telecare system

Journal

MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages 21-29

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S70520

Keywords

home telecare; Alzheimer's disease; mild cognitive impairment; caregiver; cognitive stimulation

Funding

  1. National Research Agency through RNTS (National Health Technology Network) program [TANDEM ANR 05-RNTS-01202]
  2. Foundation Mederic Alzheimer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Assistive and telecare technologies have been developed to support older adults with cognitive impairments, as well as their caregivers, from their homes. The way potential users perceive telecare and smart home systems plays a key role in their acceptance of this new technology. We evaluate the acceptance of home telecare technologies among patients suffering from cognitive impairment and their caregivers. Prototypes of telecare devices were developed to demonstrate their features and capabilities and to train patients, families, and health care professionals in their use. We conducted semistructured interviews to elicit the perceptions of 30 patients with mild cognitive impairment, 32 patients with Alzheimer's disease, and 30 caregivers, regarding the risks and advantages of home telecare and smart houses. Survey results reflected participants' largely positive reactions to these technologies. Regarding home telecare, the cognitive stimulation program earned the highest proportion of positive responses, followed by the devices' care of emergencies. The participants generally agreed that home telecare and smart houses could significantly improve their quality of life. However, some technical and ethical concerns, such as the way of provision, installation, and monitoring of the systems, were reported to be in need of addressing before implementation of this system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available