Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Telemedicine Journal...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Telemedicine Journal and e-Health
Article . 2015 . Peer-reviewed
License: Mary Ann Liebert TDM
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Cancer Caregiver: Perceived Benefits of Technology

Authors: Maria I, Lapid; Pamela J, Atherton; Matthew M, Clark; Simon, Kung; Jeff A, Sloan; Teresa A, Rummans;

Cancer Caregiver: Perceived Benefits of Technology

Abstract

The burden associated with caregiving has been well documented. Caregivers have multiple responsibilities, and technology may be accessible as a potential burden-alleviating resource.We surveyed cancer caregivers regarding current technology use and willingness to use technology for easing burden or distress. Because age has been associated with technology use, responses were compared between geriatric (≥65 years old) and nongeriatric (18-64 years old) caregivers.We had 112 respondents. Based on nonmissing responses, 66% (n=71) were women, 95% (n=106) were white, and 84% (n=91) had post-high school education. Almost all caregivers reported having Internet (105 [94%]) and e-mail (102 [91%]) access. Nongeriatric caregivers indicated more willingness to access Internet-based tools that help caregivers (54 [93%] versus 41 [76%]; p=0.04) and were more frequent users of social media (37 [64%] versus 16 [30%]; p=0.01), smartphones (33 [57%] versus 16 [30%]; p=0.01), and other mobile wireless devices (42 [72%] versus 19 [35%]; p<0.001) than geriatric caregivers. They also more frequently expected technologies to improve their own quality of life (p=0.009), increase their feelings of being effective as a caregiver (p=0.02), and save time (p=0.003). Regardless of age, a majority of caregivers (67 [62%]) endorsed the potential benefit of caregiving technologies in preventing burnout.Most caregivers have high access to and use of technology. Geriatric and nongeriatric caregivers were receptive to technology-based tools to help with their caregiving roles. Although nongeriatric caregivers expected to derive more benefit from such tools, both groups believed that caregiving technologies could reduce burden.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Internet, Time Factors, Adolescent, Age Factors, Middle Aged, Caregivers, Socioeconomic Factors, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Humans, Female, Perception, Prospective Studies, Smartphone, Social Media, Stress, Psychological, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    32
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
32
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
bronze
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research