Advertisement

Perceptions and Needs with Regard to Technologies for Professional Practice

A Prospective Qualitative Study Among Caregivers in Spain
  • Eulàlia Hernández-EncuentraEmail author
  • Alícia Aguilar-Martínez
  • Daniel López Gómez
  • Beni Gómez-Zúñiga
  • Modesta Pousada
  • Israel Conejero-Arto
  • Francesc Saigí-Rubió
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1016)

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to gain an understanding of the perceptions and needs of caregivers looking after the elderly or those with multiple disabilities with regard to the use of technology in the course of their work, in order to design the associated training.

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of 10 caregivers from different disciplines caring for the elderly or those with multiple disabilities in Spain.

Results: There is a generalized personalized use of ICT that cannot easily be transferred to caregiving duties. The difference between formal and informal care does not seem to be as important as the type of work performed: nevertheless, formal caregivers display a standardized pattern in their responses, perceiving a potential benefit and an ease in incorporating technology, but this is not accompanied by any social influence or conditions to facilitate this. With regard to the pattern of informal caregivers’ responses, although the same tendency can be noted, some uncertainty can be appreciated, particularly with regard to performance expectancy.

As a conclusion, although the benefits that technology could bring to caregivers’ tasks are perceived, no organizational or family-based context to promote or facilitate it can be appreciated, and it is this that might be the primary target of the first stage of training. In a second phase, training for caregivers would be focused on the effective use of technology.

Keywords

Caregivers Technology Needs analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge all the caregivers who shared their doubts, insights and experiences. This work is based on a larger research project supported by the Erasmus+ program under Grant No. 2017-1-DE02-KA202-004212. TechCare project.

References

  1. 1.
    Chiarini, G., Ray, P., Akter, S., Masella, C., Ganz, A.: MHealth technologies for chronic diseases and elders: a systematic review. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 9, 6 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2013.SUP.0513001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mostaghel, R.: Innovation and technology for the elderly: systematic literature review. J. Bus. Res. 69, 4896–4900 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Source MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, S.A., Venkatesh, V.: A model of adoption of technology in the household: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Q. 29(4), 399–426 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240600791333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Limayem, M., Hirt, S.G., Cheung, C.M.K.: How habit limits the predictive power of intention: the case of information systems continuance. MIS Q. 31(4), 705–737 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.2307/25148817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu, P., Li, H., Gagnon, M.-P.: Health IT acceptance factors in long-term care facilities: a cross-sectional survey. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78, 229 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Axelsson, S.W., Wikman, A.M., Näslund, A., Nyberg, L.: Older people’s health-related ICT-use in Sweden. Gerontechnology (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2013.12.1.010.00CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quintiliani, L.M., Reddy, S., Goodman, R., Bowen, D.J.: Information and communication technology use by female residents of public housing. mHealth (2016).  https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth.2016.10.01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Selwyn, N.: The information aged: a qualitative study of older adults’ use of information and communications technology. J. Aging Stud. 18, 369–384 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2004.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner, P., Turner, S., Van De Walle, G.: How older people account for their experiences with interactive technology. Behav. Inf. Technol. 26(4), 287–296 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290601173499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Twigg, J.: Carework as a form of bodywork. Ageing Soc. 20(4), 389–411 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X99007801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elwick, A., Liabo, K., Nutt, J., Simon, A.: Beyond the digital divide: young people and ICT. Read CfBT Educ Trust SSRU Inst Educ (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pols, J.: Review of Care at a distance: on the closeness of technology (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roberts, C., Mort, M., Milligan, C.: Calling for care: “disembodied” work, teleoperators and older people living at home. Sociology 46(3), 490–506 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511422551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    López, D., Sánchez-Criado, T.: Analysing hands-on-tech care work in telecare installations. In: Prendergast, D., Garattini, C. (eds.) Aging and the Digital Life Course, pp. 179–197. Berghahn Books, New York (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hernández-Encuentra, E., Pousada, M., Gómez-Zúniga, B.: ICT and older people: beyond usability. Educ. Gerontol. 35(3), 226–245 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03601270802466934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Skymne, C., Dahlin-Ivanoff, S., Claesson, L., Eklund, K.: Getting used to assistive devices: ambivalent experiences by frail elderly persons. Scand. J. Occup. Ther. 19(2), 194–203 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2011.569757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Demiris, G., Hensel, B.K., Skubic, M., Rantz, M.: Senior residents’ perceived need of and preferences for “smart home” sensor technologies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 1, 120–125 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462307080154CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PSiNET Research Group, Faculty of Psychology and Education SciencesUniversitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.FoodLab Research Group, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.CareNet Research Group, Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Faculty of Psychology and Education SciencesUniversitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.eHealth Lab Research Group, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  5. 5.i2TIC Research Group, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversitat Oberta de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations