21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Expectation, Attitude, and Barriers to Receiving Telehomecare Among Caregivers of Homebound or Bedridden Older Adults: Qualitative Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In recent years, telehomecare has become an increasingly important option for health care providers to deliver continuous care to their patients.

          Objective

          This study aims to explore the expectations, attitudes, and barriers to telehomecare among caregivers of homebound or bedridden older adults.

          Methods

          This qualitative study used semistructured interviews to explore caregivers’ perspectives on telehomecare for homebound or bedridden older adults. The study adhered to the SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research) guidelines. Participants were selected using convenience sampling from caregivers of homebound or bedridden older adults with experience in both in-person home visits and telehomecare services provided by the Department of Family Medicine at Chiang Mai University, in an urban area of Chiang Mai Province in Northern Thailand. Semistructured interviews were conducted. The interviews were audio recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim. The framework method was used, involving multiple readings of transcripts to facilitate familiarization and accuracy checking. The study used the technology acceptance model and comprehensive geriatric assessment as the analytical framework.

          Results

          The study included 20 caregivers of older adult patients. The patients were predominantly female (15/20, 75%), with an average age of 86.2 years. Of these patients, 40% (n=8) of patients were bedridden, and 60% (n=12) of patients were homebound. Caregivers expressed generally positive attitudes toward telehomecare. They considered it valuable for overall health assessment, despite recognizing certain limitations, particularly in physical assessments. Psychological assessments were perceived as equally effective. While in-person visits offered more extensive environmental assessments, caregivers found ways to make telehomecare effective. Telehomecare facilitated multidisciplinary care, enabling communication with specialists. Caregivers play a key role in care planning and adherence. Challenges included communication issues due to low volume, patient inattention, and faulty devices and internet signals. Some caregivers helped overcome these barriers. The loss of information was mitigated by modifying signaling equipment. Technology use was a challenge for some older adult caregivers. Despite these challenges, telehomecare offered advantages in remote communication and resolving scheduling conflicts. Caregivers varied in their preferences. Some preferred in-person visits for a broader view, while others favored telehomecare for its convenience. Some had no strong preference, appreciating both methods, while others considered the situation and patient conditions when choosing between them. Increased experience with telehomecare led to more confidence in its use.

          Conclusions

          Caregivers have positive attitudes and high expectations for telehomecare services. Although there may be barriers to receiving care through this mode, caregivers have demonstrated the ability to overcome these challenges, which has strengthened their confidence in telehomecare. However, it is important to enhance the skills of caregivers and health care teams to overcome barriers and optimize the use of telehomecare.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

          Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research

            Background The Framework Method is becoming an increasingly popular approach to the management and analysis of qualitative data in health research. However, there is confusion about its potential application and limitations. Discussion The article discusses when it is appropriate to adopt the Framework Method and explains the procedure for using it in multi-disciplinary health research teams, or those that involve clinicians, patients and lay people. The stages of the method are illustrated using examples from a published study. Summary Used effectively, with the leadership of an experienced qualitative researcher, the Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams even where not all members have previous experience of conducting qualitative research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period

              Background Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields. Methods A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Results Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms. Conclusions We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy. Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Aging
                JMIR Aging
                JA
                JMIR Aging
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2561-7605
                2024
                7 February 2024
                : 7
                : e48132
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Family Medicine Chiang Mai University Chiang Mai Thailand
                [2 ] Global Health and Chronic Conditions Research Group Chiang Mai University Chiang Mai Thailand
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Kanokporn Pinyopornpanish kanokporn.pinyopo@ 123456cmu.ac.th
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2046-6443
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8131-6474
                https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2512-7047
                https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1465-1185
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7406-9498
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4206-9164
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9068-3834
                Article
                v7i1e48132
                10.2196/48132
                10882467
                38324373
                749b5f04-6de1-422e-b4c4-ff7cf6312bc3
                ©Pansiree Onseng, Wichuda Jiraporncharoen, Sasiwimon Moonkayaow, Pimchai Veerasirikul, Nutchar Wiwatkunupakarn, Chaisiri Angkurawaranon, Kanokporn Pinyopornpanish. Originally published in JMIR Aging (https://aging.jmir.org), 07.02.2024.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Aging, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://aging.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 13 April 2023
                : 7 September 2023
                : 26 September 2023
                : 9 January 2024
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                telehomecare,telemedicine,telehealth,caregivers,older adults,attitudes

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content266

                Most referenced authors542