What do we require from surveillance technology? A review of the needs of people with dementia and informal caregivers

Abstract

IntroductionDementia has become a major global concern and surveillance technology might provide support for informal caregivers and people with dementia. However, the needs of caregivers and people with dementia for surveillance technology have not been reviewed.MethodA scoping literature review was used to identify the needs of caregivers and/or people with dementia towards surveillance technology. Electronic database searching was undertaken on LexisNexis, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing, Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Assistive Technology database, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies were synthesized by theme.ResultsTwenty-eight eligible studies were identified, with the majority reporting the needs of caregivers rather than people with dementia. The predominant themes for caregivers were location accuracy, and increasing the safety of the person with dementia. People with dementia wanted simple useful technology that fits within their capacity and existing routines.ConclusionsThe needs of people with dementia must be considered when designing surveillance products. Studies have mostly focused on caregivers and discount ST product requirements. Further work is required to establish effective use of surveillance technology in dementia care. Therefore, further research should cross analyze these results by examining both the needs of caregivers, and people with dementia.

Peace of mind: A community-industry-academic partnership to adapt dementia technology for Anishinaabe communities on Manitoulin Island

“…and not dementia specific. In fact, recent systematic reviews of community engagement in the development of dementia care technology 25 , 26 show that the omission of ethnicity and rurality as variables, has been common in this field. In the present study, intentionally engaging six rural Indigenous communities in Canada led to firmware and hardware design issues that might not have otherwise been evident among urban participants or contexts.…”

“…In this work however, the ethnicity of participants was rarely identified in any of the cited studies, nor was culture considered as a driving force behind context. 26 Our research objective is the development of culturally safe and culturally designed technology capable of tracking an Indigenous older adult with declining cognitive health in rural and remote areas in such a way that their mobility and independence is not impaired, connection to cell towers or internet is not needed, and the information reported from the device is useful to families to facilitate aging-in-place.…”

“… 24 Finally, with dementia-specific surveillance technology research, not one of the surveillance technology products described in several systematic reviews reported the inclusion of Indigenous or American Indian communities. 25 , 26 Indirect evidence from studies of perceived usefulness highlights the need to include non-majority, Indigenous end users in technology development. For example, high perceived usefulness of technology increases acceptance, and “usefulness” is noted to be context specific (e.g.…”

Investigating Users' and Other Stakeholders' Needs in the Development of a Personalized Integrated Care Platform (PROCare4Life) for Older People with Dementia or Parkinson Disease: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

“…A review by Vermeer et al [ 27 ] indicated that research on the needs of older people living with dementia and their caregivers remained mainly qualitative, with more focus on the needs of caregivers than patients and a clear difference in perspectives. For instance, results from focus groups revealed that dementia patients had some concerns over the use of trackers, while their caregivers had a great interest in their use [ 28 ].…”

Overcoming Barriers to the Adoption of Locating Technologies in Dementia Care: A Multi-stakeholder Focus Group Study

“…Prevalence rates of PwDs getting lost even in familiar environments range from 17% (6) to 75% (7) depending on de nitions and reporting measures used, which exposes PwDs to risks that can result in life-threatening circumstances (9). To avoid such risks, CGs' often limit PwDs' independent outdoor ambulation by opting for chaperon, sedative or incarceration-type prevention measures (10) although these measures can negatively impact biopsychosocial health (11). By contrast, locating devices can promote PwDs' independence and safety by helping them manage spatial orientation impairments and by supporting CGs to intervene when necessary (12).…”