Home › Research › Risk factors
Telehealth Home Support During COVID-19 Confinement for Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Mild Dementia: Survey Study
Jessica Marian Goodman‐Casanova, Elena Dura-Perez, Jose Guzman Parra, Antonio Cuesta‐Vargas, Fermín Mayoral. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2020-05-12
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Of the respondents, 60/93 (65%) were women. The mean age was 73.34 (SD 6.07), and 69/93 (74%) lived accompanied. Lockdown measures forced 17/93 respondents (18%) to change their living arrangements. Health status was found to be optimal in 89/93 respondents (96%), with no COVID-19 symptoms. Grocery and pharmacy outings were performed by family members of 68/93 participants (73%); 57 (61%) reported overall well-being, and 65 (70%) maintained their sleep quality. However, participants living alone reported greater negative feelings and more sleeping problems. Regarding leisure activities, 53/93 respondents (57%) took walks, 32 (35%) played memory games, 55 (60%) watched television, and 91 (98%) telephoned relatives. 58/93 (64%) respondents reported accessing moderate or too much COVID-19 information, 89 (97%) received it from television, and 56 (62%) stated that their understanding of the information was extreme. 39/93 (39%) respondents had contacted health and social services, while 29 (31%) requested information regarding these services during the telephone call. There were no significant differences in health and well-being between the intervention and control groups. Respondents with TV-AssistDem performed more memory exercises (24/93, 52% vs 8/93, 17.4%; P<.001) than control respondents. Our findings suggest that during COVID-19 confinement, the physical and mental health and well-being was optimal for the majority of our vulnerable population. However, those living alone reported greater negative psychological effects and sleeping problems. Measures adopted to address the negative experiences of confinement included keeping informed about the situation, accessing health and social services, having a support network that prevents risk of exposure to COVID-19 and guarantees food and medical supplies, a daily routine with maintained sleeping habits and leisure activities, staying physically and mentally active with cognitive stimulation exercises, and ensuring social connectedness using technology. Television sets were preferred technological devices to access COVID-19 information, watch television as a recreational activity, and perform memory exercises as an intellectual activity. Television-based telehealth support using TV-AssistDem demonstrated potential for cognitive stimulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653234; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03653234.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Goodman‐Casanova, J. M., Dura-Perez, E., Parra, J. G., Cuesta‐Vargas, A., & Mayoral, F. (2020). Telehealth Home Support During COVID-19 Confinement for Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Mild Dementia: Survey Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/19434
Vancouver
Goodman‐Casanova JM, Dura-Perez E, Parra JG, Cuesta‐Vargas A, Mayoral F. Telehealth Home Support During COVID-19 Confinement for Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Mild Dementia: Survey Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020. doi:10.2196/19434. PMID: 32401215.
BibTeX
@article{goodmancasanova2020-32401215,
author = {Goodman‐Casanova, Jessica Marian and Dura-Perez, Elena and Parra, Jose Guzman and Cuesta‐Vargas, Antonio and Mayoral, Fermín},
title = {{Telehealth Home Support During COVID-19 Confinement for Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Mild Dementia: Survey Study}},
journal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.2196/19434},
pmid = {32401215},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/19434}
}
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.
Key findings
- Of the respondents, 60/93 (65%) were women.
- The mean age was 73.34 (SD 6.07), and 69/93 (74%) lived accompanied.
- Lockdown measures forced 17/93 respondents (18%) to change their living arrangements.
- Health status was found to be optimal in 89/93 respondents (96%), with no COVID-19 symptoms.
- Grocery and pharmacy outings were performed by family members of 68/93 participants (73%); 57 (61%) reported overall well-being, and 65 (70%) maintained their sleep quality.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants93
- Effect size17.4%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Medical Internet Research) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 93 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 32401215) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “caregiver”
195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.