Effects of a caregiver-inclusive assistive technology intervention: a randomized controlled trial

W Ben Mortenson, Louise Demers, Marcus J Fuhrer, Jeffrey W Jutai, Jessica Bilkey, Michelle Plante, Frank DeRuyter, W Ben Mortenson, Louise Demers, Marcus J Fuhrer, Jeffrey W Jutai, Jessica Bilkey, Michelle Plante, Frank DeRuyter

Abstract

Background: The principal aim of this study was to investigate whether a caregiver-inclusive assistive technology intervention improved older care recipients' functional autonomy and decreased the perceived burden of their family caregivers compared to customary care.

Methods: The study was a single-blind, mixed-methods, randomized controlled trial with baseline data collection and follow-ups at 6-, 22-, and 58-weeks after baseline evaluation, which was prospectively registered ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01640470. Registered 11/21/2011). Dyads comprising a care recipient and family caregiver were randomly assigned to either a caregiver-inclusive experimental group (N = 44) or a customary-care comparison group (N = 46). Eligible care recipients were aged ≥55 years and had one or more limitations with mobility or daily activities, and family caregivers provided at least four hours per week of assistance. Outcome measures were administered to both groups at baseline and at the three follow-up time points. The data collectors were blinded regarding participants' intervention group. The primary outcome measures were the Functional Autonomy Measurement System to assess care recipients' functional performance, and the Caregiver Assistive Technology Outcome Measure to assess caregivers' burden. Qualitative interviews examined participants' perceptions of the caregiver-inclusive and customary care interventions.

Results: The experimental intervention addressed significantly more dyad-identified problematic activities, but caregiver involvement was evident in both groups and outcomes were not significantly different over time. In both groups, care recipients' functional autonomy declined significantly (P < .01), and caregivers' activity-specific and overall burden decreased significantly (P < .01).

Conclusions: Given the unintended congruence between the caregiver-inclusive and customary care interventions, the overall findings lend support for the provision of assistive technology to reduce caregiver burden.

Keywords: Assistive technology; Family caregivers; Older adults; Randomized controlled trial.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been approved by the offices of research ethics boards of the participating sites: Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal (reference 11, 12-018), West Island Health and Social Services Center (no reference number), University of Ottawa (reference A09-11-02), Bruyère Continuing Care (reference M16-11-021), University of British Columbia – Providence Health Care Research Institute (reference H12-03195), and Simon Fraser University (reference 2011 s0346). Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram

References

    1. Colby SL, Ortman JM. Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060. In: U.S. Census Bureau, Ed. 2015. Retrieved April 13, 2018. .
    1. Freedman VA, Spillman BC, Andreski PM, Cornman JC, Crimmins EM, Kramarow E, et al. Trends in late-life activity limitations in the United States: an update from five national surveys. Demography. 2013;50:661–671. doi: 10.1007/s13524-012-0167-z.
    1. Erickson W, Lee C, von Schrader S. 2013 disability status report: United States. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute(EDI); 2014.
    1. Agree EM. The potential for technology to enhance independence for those aging with a disability. Disabil Health J. 2014;7:S33–9.
    1. Freedman VA, Kasper JD, Spillman BC, Agree EM, Mor V, Wallace RB, et al. Behavioral adaptation and late-life disability: a new spectrum for assessing public health impacts. Am J Public Health. 2014;104:e88–e94. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301687.
    1. Freedman VA, Agree EM, Martin LG, Cornman JC. Trends in the use of assistive technology and personal care for late-life disability, 1992-2001. Gerontologist. 2006;46:124–127. doi: 10.1093/geront/46.1.124.
    1. Mann WC, Ottenbacher KJ, Fraas L, Tomita M, Granger CV. Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly. A randomized controlled trial. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:210–217. doi: 10.1001/archfami.8.3.210.
    1. Wilson DJ, Mitchell JM, Kemp BJ, Adkins RH, Mann WC. Effects of assistive technology on functional decline in people aging with a disability. Assist Technol. 2009;21:208–217. doi: 10.1080/10400430903246068.
    1. Gitlin LN, Winter L, Dennis MP, Corcoran M, Schinfeld S, Hauck WW. A randomized trial of a multicomponent home intervention to reduce functional difficulties in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:809–816. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00703.x.
    1. National Alliance for Caregiving & the AARP Public Policy Institute. 2015 report--caregiving in the U.S. 2015. Retrieved April 13, 2018. .
    1. Sinha M. Portrait of caregivers, 2012. In: Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 89-652-X—No.001. 2013. Retrieved April 13, 2018.
    1. Agree EM, Freedman VA, Sengupta M. Factors influencing the use of mobility technology in community-based long-term care. J Aging Health. 2004;16:267–307. doi: 10.1177/0898264303262623.
    1. Health Council of Canada . Seniors in need, caregivers in distress: what are the home care priorities for seniors in Canada? 2012.
    1. Reinhard SC, Feinberg LF, Choula R, Houser R. Valuing the invaluable: 2015 update, undeniable progress but big gaps remain. In: AARP Public Policy Institute. 2015. Retrieved April 13, 2018.
    1. Egbert N, Dellmann-Jenkins M, Smith GC, Coeling H, Johnson RJ. The emotional needs of care recipients and the psychological well-being of informal caregivers. Implications for home care clinicians. Home Healthc Nurse. 2008;26:50–57. doi: 10.1097/01.NHH.0000305557.29918.e5.
    1. Buhse M. Assessment of caregiver burden in families of persons with multiple sclerosis. J Neurosci Nurs. 2008;40:25–31. doi: 10.1097/01376517-200802000-00005.
    1. Marasinghe KM. Assistive technologies in reducing caregiver burden among informal caregivers of older adults: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11:353–360. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1087061.
    1. Mortenson WB, Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Lenker J, DeRuyter F. How assistive technology use by individuals with disabilities impacts their caregivers. A systematic review of the research evidence. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91:984–998. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318269eceb.
    1. Mortenson WB, Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Lenker J, DeRuyter F. Effects of an assistive technology intervention on older adults with disabilities and their informal caregivers. An exploratory randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92:297–306. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31827d65bf.
    1. Demers L, Mortenson WB, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Plante M, Mah J, et al. Effect of a tailored assistive technology intervention on older adults and their family caregiver: a pragmatic study protocol. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:103. doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0269-3.
    1. Mortenson, W. B., Pysklywec, A., Fuhrer, M. J., Jutai, J. W., Plante, M., & Demers, L. (2017). Caregivers’ experiences with the selection and use of assistive technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1-5 [Epub before print]. doi:10.1080/17483107.2017.1353652.
    1. Desrosiers J, Bravo G, Hébert R, Dubuc N. Reliability of the revised functional autonomy measurement system (SMAF) for epidemiological research. Age Ageing. 1995;24:402–406. doi: 10.1093/ageing/24.5.402.
    1. Jensen MP, Abresch RT, Carter GT. The reliability and validity of a self-report version of the FIM instrument in persons with neuromuscular disease and chronic pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:116–122. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.01.040.
    1. Wood-Dauphinee SL, Opzoomer MA, Williams JI, Marchand B, Spitzer WO. Assessment of global function: the reintegration to normal living index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69:583–590.
    1. Stark SL, Edwards DF, Hollingsworth H, Gray DB. Validation of the reintegration to normal living index in a population of community-dwelling people with mobility limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:344–345. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.03.020.
    1. Mortenson WB, Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Lenker J, DeRuyter F. Development and preliminary evaluation of the caregiver assistive technology outcome measure. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47:412–418. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1952.
    1. Novak M, Guest C. Application of a multidimensional caregiver burden inventory. Gerontologist. 1989;29:798–803. doi: 10.1093/geront/29.6.798.
    1. EuroQol Group EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Grafström M, Winblad B. Family burden in the care of the demented and nondemented elderly – a longitudinal study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1995;9:78–86. doi: 10.1097/00002093-199509020-00004.
    1. Carver J, Ganus A, Ivey JM, Plummer T, Eubank A. The impact of mobility assistive technology devices on participation for individuals with disability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2016;11:468–477.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir