Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Usages of Computers and Smartphones to Develop Dementia Care Education Program for Asian American Family Caregivers
Lee JA, Nguyen H, Park J, Tran L, Nguyen T, Huynh Y.. Healthcare informatics research, 2017-10-31
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives Families of ethnic minority persons with dementia often seek help at later stages of the disease. Little is known about the effectiveness of various methods in supporting ethnic minority dementia patients' caregivers. The objective of the study was to identify smartphone and computer usage among family caregivers of dementia patients (i.e., Korean and Vietnamese Americans) to develop dementia-care education programs for them. Methods Participants were asked various questions related to their computer or smartphone usage in conjunction with needs-assessment interviews. Flyers were distributed at two ethnic minority community centers in Southern California. Snowball recruitment was also utilized to reach out to the families of dementia patients dwelling in the community. Results Thirty-five family caregivers, including 20 Vietnamese and 15 Korean individuals, participated in this survey. Thirty participants (30 of 35, 85.7%) were computer users. Among those, 76.7% (23 of 30) reported daily usage and 53% (16 of 30) claimed to use social media. A majority of the participants (31 of 35, 88.6%) reported that they owned smartphones. More than half of smartphone users (18 of 29, 62%) claimed to use social media applications. Many participants claimed that they could not attend in-class education due to caregiving and/or transportation issues. Conclusions Most family caregivers of dementia patients use smartphones more often than computers, and more than half of those caregivers communicate with others through social media apps. A smartphone-app-based caregiver intervention may serve as a more effective approach compared to the conventional in-class method. Multiple modalities for the development of caregiver interventions should be considered.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lee, J. A., Nguyen, H., Park, J., Tran, L., Nguyen, T., & Huynh, Y. (2017). Usages of Computers and Smartphones to Develop Dementia Care Education Program for Asian American Family Caregivers. Healthcare informatics research. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.338
Vancouver
Lee JA, Nguyen H, Park J, Tran L, Nguyen T, Huynh Y. Usages of Computers and Smartphones to Develop Dementia Care Education Program for Asian American Family Caregivers. Healthcare informatics research. 2017. doi:10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.338. PMID: 29181245.
BibTeX
@article{lee2017-29181245,
author = {Lee, J. A. and Nguyen, H. and Park, J. and Tran, L. and Nguyen, T. and Huynh, Y.},
title = {{Usages of Computers and Smartphones to Develop Dementia Care Education Program for Asian American Family Caregivers}},
journal = {Healthcare informatics research},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.338},
pmid = {29181245},
url = {https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.338}
}
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
- Results Thirty-five family caregivers, including 20 Vietnamese and 15 Korean individuals, participated in this survey.
- A smartphone-app-based caregiver intervention may serve as a more effective approach compared to the conventional in-class method.
Study details
- Effect size85.7%; 76.7%; 88.6%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size 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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Healthcare informatics 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 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| 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 29181245) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “asian-american”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “asian-american”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.