Home › Research › Risk factors
Feasibility and acceptability of virtual programs for people with dementia and their caregivers
Winnie Sun, Glory Gabel, Rabia Akhter, Lynda Lawson, Jennifer Plishewsky. BMC geriatrics, 2024-09-25
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The PWD and ICG interviews provided insight into the positive impacts of VP, challenges of VP, program barriers, program facilitating factors, and suggestions for future improvement for the OSCC55 + VPs. Participants highlighted that the VP created an option for them to remain socially connected to their community; while also outlining the positive impact on reducing loneliness, challenges with technology use, the importance of involving younger generations and volunteers, and the need for more culturally inclusive programs. The VP developed by OSCC55 + were perceived as effective and useful for PWD and their ICG, helping to reduce feelings of loneliness and relieving caregiving tasks. These findings suggest that VP can complement in-person programs in the future, offering a hybrid model that leverages the strengths of both approaches to better meet the needs of PWD and ICG.
Key findings
- The PWD and ICG interviews provided insight into the positive impacts of VP, challenges of VP, program barriers, program facilitating factors, and suggestions for future improvement for the OSCC55 + VPs.
- Participants highlighted that the VP created an option for them to remain socially connected to their community; while also outlining the positive impact on reducing loneliness, challenges with technology use, the importance of involving younger generations and volunteers, and the need for more culturally inclusive programs.
- The VP developed by OSCC55 + were perceived as effective and useful for PWD and their ICG, helping to reduce feelings of loneliness and relieving caregiving tasks.
- These findings suggest that VP can complement in-person programs in the future, offering a hybrid model that leverages the strengths of both approaches to better meet the needs of PWD and ICG.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants14
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC geriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 14 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39322955) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Sun, W., Gabel, G., Akhter, R., Lawson, L., & Plishewsky, J. (2024). Feasibility and acceptability of virtual programs for people with dementia and their caregivers. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05375-6
Vancouver
Sun W, Gabel G, Akhter R, Lawson L, Plishewsky J. Feasibility and acceptability of virtual programs for people with dementia and their caregivers. BMC geriatrics. 2024. doi:10.1186/s12877-024-05375-6. PMID: 39322955.
BibTeX
@article{sun2024-39322955,
author = {Sun, Winnie and Gabel, Glory and Akhter, Rabia and Lawson, Lynda and Plishewsky, Jennifer},
title = {{Feasibility and acceptability of virtual programs for people with dementia and their caregivers}},
journal = {BMC geriatrics},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1186/s12877-024-05375-6},
pmid = {39322955},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05375-6}
}