Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Telecare promises support for older adults aging in place and helps alleviate the burden on informal caregivers. However, research on informal caregivers’ perceptions of telecare is limited, particularly in the context of unique challenges of dementia. This study addresses this gap by examining the differences between informal caregivers of older adults with and without dementia in terms of the care burden, acceptability of different telecare functionalities, and perceived psychosocial outcomes of telecare use. Conducted in Slovenia with 612 informal caregivers aged 40 and above, the study determined that dementia caregivers experienced higher care burden and perceived greater acceptability of mobility-related telecare devices. Both groups reported similar perceived psychosocial outcomes of telecare use, including reassurance and reduced anxiety. The findings highlight the need to tailor telecare functionalities to informal caregivers’ specific circumstances, particularly in supporting people with dementia, to enhance telecare’s effectiveness and the well-being of informal caregivers and care recipients.

Keywords

telecare informal care family caregivers dementia psychosocial outcomes aging acceptability

What This Paper Adds

Provides the first comprehensive national data comparing telecare perceptions among Slovenian informal caregivers of older adults with and without dementia.

Reveals that informal caregivers of older adults with dementia favor mobility-related technologies and emphasize context-specific needs.

Applications of Study Findings

Highlights the importance of tailoring telecare to dementia-related needs, such as wandering, to improve informal caregiver support and the well-being of older adults.

Encourages integration of user-centered design principles in telecare development to ensure usability for both informal caregivers and cognitively impaired older adults.

Introduction

The global population is aging rapidly, with people aged 65 or older projected to comprise 30.7% of the global population by 2050 (Population Reference Bureau, 2024). Aging in place, which enables older adults to remain at home rather than moving to long-term care facilities (Grimmer et al., 2015), is being widely promoted but remains inaccessible for many due to care poverty—that is, a lack of necessary care resulting from the limited availability, accessibility, or affordability of formal and informal support (Kröger et al., 2019, 2022). Addressing care poverty has thus become crucial, particularly as demographic changes threaten the availability of informal caregivers,¹ unpaid individuals providing ongoing care outside formal structures, which has prompted the European Commission to emphasize their support and to promote their empowerment (Zigante, 2018). Another pressing challenge is the growing prevalence of dementia, which is expected to affect significantly more people as the population ages. Currently, approximately 57.4 million people globally live with dementia, which is projected to increase by 166% by 2050 (GBD 2019 Dementia Forecasting Collaborators, 2022; World Health Organization, 2025). Because dementia progressively limits independence and increases the need for continuous supervision and support, its rising prevalence poses an additional barrier to aging in place and further increased reliance on informal caregivers (Alzheimer’s Association, 2022).

Care Burden

In response to the rising need for support for long-term care, many European countries, including Slovenia, have shifted their care models toward aging in place, thus further increasing reliance on informal caregivers (Spasova et al., 2018). In Slovenia, 33.1% of people aged 40 and over now provide at least four hours of unpaid care weekly to someone aged 65 or older (Dolničar et al., 2021). This extensive caregiving role requires ongoing engagement in daily personal care, household tasks and financial management, medication oversight, and continuous attention to safety (Winblad et al., 2016), placing multifaceted demands on informal caregivers. These responsibilities contribute to cumulative strain, encompassing disruptions to professional and social life (Raiber et al., 2023), strained family relationships (Yusri & Khairudin, 2024), and a range of physical and mental health issues, including stress, depression, burnout, and reduced quality of life (Akgun-Citak et al., 2020; Tatangelo et al., 2018). Such responsibilities are typically more time and emotionally intensive for dementia caregivers than for those assisting older adults without dementia (Karg et al., 2018), with consistently higher care burden observed internationally (Boogaard et al., 2019; Givens et al., 2012). Despite such global evidence, data on the care burden in Slovenia is still limited. Nearly half of Slovenian informal caregivers report a mild-to-moderate burden, and a quarter report a moderate-to-high burden (Nagode et al., 2021), but no study has yet systematically compared informal caregivers of older adults with and without dementia in the Slovenian context; this study addresses that gap.

Telecare

Telecare is increasingly recognized as a tool that supports aging in place, reduces the care burden, and promotes the well-being of older adults (Eurocarers, 2018). It entails the use of digital technologies to deliver health and social support remotely, enabling older adults to remain at home with greater safety and independence (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.). Telecare includes devices such as personal alarms, fall detectors, environmental monitors, GPS trackers, and medication reminders (Karlsen et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2012), supporting both sensory and cognitive needs (Cook et al., 2017).

Acceptability of Telecare

Understanding how informal caregivers perceive telecare technologies before using them is crucial. Acceptability—distinct from post-use acceptance—captures users’ anticipated cognitive and emotional responses to a technology they have yet to experience (Sekhon et al., 2017). A scoping study (Hvalič-Touzery et al., 2022c) found that post-use acceptance of telecare among informal caregivers was more nuanced than acceptability before use, while also highlighting a lack of research on acceptance and particularly on the acceptability of telecare in informal care. Furthermore, research suggests that acceptability can vary depending on the care recipient’s level of dependency and the specific functionalities offered (Hvalič-Touzery & Dolničar, 2022; Smole Orehek et al., 2020). However, existing studies have rarely considered the variety of telecare functionalities or examined the unique needs of informal caregivers supporting older adults with dementia. This is significant because informal caregivers of highly dependent older adults with cognitive impairments may rely more heavily on specific technologies to alleviate anxiety, provide peace of mind, and reduce the care burden (Sriram et al., 2019). Poor acceptability of telecare would therefore undermine such benefits, which highlights the need to explore informal caregivers’ perspectives further.

Perceived Psychosocial Outcomes of Telecare use

It is also important to consider the perceived psychosocial outcomes of telecare use, which relate to its impact on informal caregivers’ emotional well-being, social interactions, and overall quality of life (Martikainen et al., 2002; Vizzotto et al., 2020). Telecare does not operate in isolation; rather, it is embedded in a broader socio-technical environment that can affect informal caregivers’ psychological and social functioning, feelings, behaviors, relationships, interactions, and cognitive processes (Abda et al., 2019). While much existing research has focused on benefits for care recipients (Hvalič-Touzery et al., 2022d; Verloo et al., 2020), there is growing evidence that informal caregivers themselves can enjoy increased reassurance and peace of mind (Guisado-Fernández et al., 2019; Hvalič-Touzery et al., 2022a, 2022b; Karlsen et al., 2019), decreased commuting time from being able to monitor the care recipient remotely (Gaugler et al., 2019), and greater personal freedom (Sriram et al., 2019). These benefits are especially relevant in dementia care, in which constant supervision is often necessary and for which technology may offer some relief.

Aim of the Study

Despite recognition of the importance of informal caregivers’ views, little research has examined their perceptions of telecare prior to use. Furthermore, there is limited evidence on how these perceptions differ between informal caregivers of older adults with and without dementia, including in the Slovenian context. To address this gap, the present study explores the first-hand perspectives of informal caregivers of older adults with and without dementia. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) How do the two groups differ in perceived care burden? (2) How do they differ in telecare acceptability? (3) How do they differ in perceived psychosocial outcomes of telecare use?

Methods

Procedures

Participants were recruited through Valicon, a market research firm, and data were collected using the online survey tool 1KA, an open-source platform for web surveys. The average completion time for the entire survey was 20 min. The first part of the survey (approximately 3%) served as a screening tool, covering weekly caregiving hours, types of caregiving tasks (e.g., basic and instrumental activities of daily living and emotional support), and the kinship and age of the older adult. Eligible participants continued directly in the main survey, which had to be completed in a single session. Of the 3,284 individuals invited, only those meeting the inclusion criteria—individuals aged 40 or older providing at least four hours of care per week to family member(s) aged 65 or above—proceeded, while others were excluded. This resulted in a final sample of 612 participants (18.6% response rate).

Data were collected using a structured online questionnaire in April and May 2021. Participation was voluntary and based on informed consent. Participants accessed the survey via a unique invitation link distributed by Valicon. Before starting the survey, participants received information about the study’s aims, data use, survey length, and contact details, and consent was indicated by proceeding with the survey. Data quality was ensured through rigorous screening, removal of incomplete or inconsistent responses, and exclusion of cases with implausibly fast completion times. Quota sampling based on gender, age, and region, guided by official data from the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, ensured diversity, and responses were weighted using data from the Slovenian Public Opinion Survey (Hafner-Fink et al., 2021) to enhance representativeness.

Measures

Care burden was measured using the Self-Rated Burden Scale (van Exel et al., 2004), a self-assessment tool in which respondents rate their perceived burden on a single scale from 0 (“not at all straining”) to 10 (“much too straining”), with higher scores indicating greater burden.

Telecare acceptability was measured using four items, each corresponding to specific functionality: (1) an emergency call system activated by the older person, (2) a fall detection device that sends automatic alerts, (3) home sensors that notify caregivers of unusual activities, and (4) a wearable device for location tracking. The participants were asked how likely they would be to use each telecare service using a five-point scale from 1 (“certainly would not want to”) to 5 (“certainly would want to”). The four items showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.878). Two-item combinations also demonstrated excellent reliability, with Spearman-Brown coefficient of 0.898 for personal alarm systems and 0.883 for mobility-related devices.

Perceived psychosocial outcomes of telecare use were measured using five outcome types, identified in a prior scoping study (Hvalič-Touzery et al., 2022c), focusing either on informal caregivers or care recipients. Caregiver-focused outcomes included reassurance, reduced worry, and increased feelings of safety, while care recipient-focused outcomes addressed perceived independence and security. Responses were rated on a five-point scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The four items demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.906).

Data Analysis

The statistical analyses focused primarily on comparing informal caregivers of older adults with and without dementia. Descriptive statistics summarized the participant characteristics, and group differences were examined using chi-square tests for binary variables and independent-samples t-tests for continuous measures such as care burden, acceptability of telecare functionalities, and the perceived psychosocial outcomes of telecare use. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 27. We used the STROBE cross sectional checklist when writing our report (von Elm et al., 2008).

Results

The sample had a balanced gender distribution (47% male, 53% female) and a mean age of 55.8 years (SD = 10.2). Most participants had completed secondary (51.1%) or higher (46.0%) education, 59.6% were employed, 30.0% retired, and 53.7% lived in the same building while 35.7% lived within 30 min of the care recipient. Care recipients had a mean age of 78.5 years (SD = 8.4), and 16.9% of informal caregivers reported that the older adult they cared for had been diagnosed with dementia. Most informal caregivers were adult children (41.5% mothers, 13.9% fathers), followed by partners/spouses (15.2%), and parents-in-law (17.0% combined), with smaller proportions of grandparents, siblings, and other relatives (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics

Variable	Categories	%	n ^a
Informal caregivers’ characteristics
Gender	Male	47.0	287
Gender	Female	53.0	325
Age	40–59 years	66.4	406
	60–79 years	32.5	199
	80+ years	1.1	7
Marital status	Living with a spouse	77.3	459
Marital status	Single	22.7	135
Education	Primary school (ISCED^b levels 0–2)	2.9	18
	Secondary school (ISCED level 3)	51.1	313
	Higher education (ISCED levels 5–8)	46.0	281
Employment status	Employed	59.6	353
	Retired	30.0	178
	Unemployed	10.4	62
Travel time between informal caregiver and care recipient	Live in the same building	53.7	328
	Live up to 30 minutes away	35.7	219
	Live at least 30 minutes away	10.6	65
Care recipients’ characteristics
Age	65–74 years	35.7	218
	75–84 years	36.9	226
	85+ years	27.4	168
Marital status	Living with a spouse	42.6	261
Marital status	Single/widowed	57.4	351
Dementia	Yes	16.9	103
Dementia	No	83.1	509
Kinship	Parent	55.4	339
	Partner/spouse	15.2	93
	Parent-in-law	17.0	104
	Grandparent	3.9	24
	Sibling	1.3	8
	Other relative	7.2	44

^an = 612, however sample sizes vary due to missing data resulting from invalid responses or participant refusals.

^bEducational levels according to the ISCED 2011 classification (Eurostat, n.d.).

Comparative Sample Characteristics: Older Adults With and Without Dementia

According to their informal caregivers, older adults with dementia (n = 103) were older on average, in poorer health, and required more help with daily and instrumental activities compared to those without dementia (n = 509). They were also more likely to have experienced a fall in the past five years (p < 0.01; see Table 2).

Table 2.

Characteristics of Older Adult Care Recipients

Characteristic	Older Adults with Dementia Mean (SD)/% (n)	Older Adults without Dementia Mean (SD)/% (n)	t/x ²
Mean age (years)	84.28 (7.19)	77.36 (8.15)	−8.702^***
Health perceived by informal caregivers^a	3.40 (0.80)	2.97 (0.82)	−4.973^***
Need help with ADLs^b	32.9% (34)	12.7% (65)	25.666^***
Need help with IADLs^c	79.2% (82)	41.0% (209)	48.502^***
Experienced a fall in last 5 years	76.0% (78)	60.2% (306)	8.930^**

Note. n = 612, however, sample sizes vary due to missing data resulting from invalid responses or participant refusals. SD = standard deviation. ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

^aHealth perceived by informal caregivers was measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very good and 5 = very poor).

^bActivities of daily living (ADLs) include fundamental personal care tasks, such as hygiene, dressing, toileting, mobility, and eating (Hyejin et al., 2021).

^cInstrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) involve more complex tasks, such as shopping, cooking, laundry, transportation, managing finances, and managing medication (Hyejin et al., 2021).

All following analyses comparing both groups of informal caregivers were conducted using independent-samples t-tests.

Care Burden

Results indicate that informal caregivers of older adults with dementia experience a statistically significantly greater care burden (mean = 6.59) than those caring for older adults without dementia (mean = 4.28, p < 0.001; see Table 3).

Table 3.

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures	Older Adults with Dementia Mean (SD)	Older Adults without Dementia Mean (SD)	t
Care burden	6.59 (2.52)	4.28 (2.82)	−8.141^***
Acceptability of telecare	3.81 (1.14)	3.64 (1.07)	−1.465^a
Personal alarm system	3.89 (1.20)	3.78 (1.18)	−0.575^a
Mobility-related devices	3.53 (1.29)	3.24 (1.27)	−2.040^*
Perceived psychosocial outcomes
I would feel more reassured	3.86 (0.94)	3.92 (0.80)	0.622^a
I would feel less worried about the person’s condition	3.80 (0.93)	3.80 (0.88)	−0.007^a
I would feel that the person I am helping is safe	3.64 (1.02)	3.66 (0.85)	0.148^a
The person I help would have an increased sense of independence.	3.24 (1.14)	3.52 (0.96)	2.291^*
The person I am helping would feel safer.	3.40 (1.16)	3.62 (0.96)	2.030^*

Note. n = 612, however sample sizes vary due to missing data resulting from invalid responses or participant refusals. SD = standard deviation; ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

^a = not significant.

Acceptability of Telecare

Informal caregivers of older adults with dementia rated mobility-related telecare technologies more favorably than informal caregivers of those without dementia (mean = 3.53 vs. 3.24, p < 0.05). Overall telecare acceptability was relatively high in both groups, with mean score of 3.81 for informal caregivers of older adults with dementia and 3.64 for those without, though this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed for personal alarm systems or fall detectors (p > 0.05).

Perceived Psychosocial Outcomes

Informal caregivers of older adults without dementia rated care recipient-focused outcomes, such as increased independence and safety, significantly higher than informal caregivers of those with dementia (p < 0.05). By contrast, caregiver-focused outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. Both groups rated these outcomes positively, with the highest scores for increased reassurance and reduced worry (see Table 3).

Discussion

This study explored the differences between Slovenian informal caregivers of older adults with dementia and those without dementia, focusing on care burden, acceptability of various telecare services, and perceived psychosocial outcomes of telecare use. It found significant differences in the care burden experienced, consistent with Steinsheim et al. (2023), who argued that more severe dementia is associated with higher care burden due to increased neuropsychiatric dementia symptoms and the simple need for more care and assistance. While numerous studies from other countries have similarly emphasized the detrimental effects of caregiving on both physical and mental health (Brini et al., 2021; Gérain & Zech, 2019), no such research has been conducted in Slovenia. These findings further highlight how caring for an older adult with cognitive impairment places a significantly greater burden on informal caregivers simply due to the complex and demanding nature of such care (Budnick et al., 2021).

While the overall acceptability of telecare was high, informal caregivers of older adults with dementia expressed a stronger preference for mobility-related technologies, such as motion sensors and GPS tracking. These technologies are particularly relevant for addressing dementia-related risks, including wandering (Bartlett & Brannelly, 2019; McMaster et al., 2018), which can pose significant safety risks and increase the care burden for informal caregivers (Lindeza et al., 2020). This finding aligns with previous studies showing that informal caregivers often value mobility-related devices for their potential to reduce supervision demand and enhance safety (Ehn et al., 2021; Firouraghi et al., 2022). Earlier research has also noted that such devices are most useful in the early stages of dementia, when individuals can still engage with them (Gibson et al., 2019; White et al., 2020), although recent evidence indicated that GPS tracking can remain effective and safe even in later stages (Doyle et al., 2024).

In contrast, no significant differences were found in the acceptability of personal alarm systems. This may reflect that these devices address broad safety needs, such as fall risk and emergency response, that are common across caregiving situations and not specific to dementia, and that practical issues like inconsistent device use, forgetfulness, or false alerts are frequently reported in both dementia and non-dementia caregiving (Stokke, 2016).

These findings help to explain the mixed results in previous research on telecare acceptability. While some studies have emphasized the importance of care recipients’ level of dependency—particularly in relation to dementia (Hvalič Touzery et al., 2022c; Thordardottir et al., 2019)—others suggest that dementia does not influence acceptability (Dolničar & Hvalič-Touzery, 2024). Our results suggest that, while there are no statistically significant differences in the overall acceptability of personal alarm systems or telecare in general, significant differences emerge for mobility-related devices. This underscores the importance of distinguishing between the different types of telecare services when investigating their acceptability.

Perceived psychosocial outcomes of telecare use were evaluated across two categories: caregiver-focused outcomes and care recipient-focused outcomes. The average scores for both categories were above average, suggesting that informal caregivers generally perceive telecare as likely to provide meaningful emotional and psychological benefits while also emphasizing caregiver-focused outcomes such as increased reassurance and decreased anxiety.

Previous empirical studies have reported similar positive psychosocial outcomes from actual use of telecare by informal caregivers; for example, Dolničar et al. (2017) concluded that telecare can reduce anxiety and worry and provide a greater sense of security and reassurance because informal caregivers can monitor their care recipients’ well-being remotely. Similarly, Cook et al. (2017) and Karlsen et al. (2019) emphasized that telecare provides peace of mind and increases safety, particularly when there is a risk of falling or wandering.

Interestingly, while the caregiver-focused psychosocial outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups, informal caregivers of those without dementia reported higher perceived benefits in terms of the care recipient’s independence and safety. This may be because informal caregivers of those with dementia are aware that cognitive decline can limit the care recipient’s ability to interact with or benefit from such telecare technologies. As dementia progresses, individuals may struggle to use devices like pendant alarms or even to understand their purpose, lowering caregivers’ expectations of their effectiveness (Hvalič-Touzery, 2022d; Smole Orehek, 2022; White et al., 2020). Overall, our findings align with this literature, while also indicating that expectations of care recipient outcomes may be more modest in dementia caregiving contexts.

Implications

Our findings also hold practical relevance in that they may contribute to the development of more effective telecare solutions that support both informal caregivers and care recipients. Telecare solutions that address dementia-specific risks, such as wandering, may reduce care burden and help mitigate care poverty. Importantly, our findings support international evidence that highlights the need to design telecare systems that can be tailored to the severity and progression of dementia. Factors such as the size of a device and its complexity, reliability, ease of use (Nasrun et al., 2024; Sriram et al., 2019), and greater flexibility in design and implementation should also be considered (Gibson et al., 2019; Guisado-Fernández et al., 2019). As Chien et al. (2024) argue, for technology to be both accepted and effectively used, it must go beyond user-friendliness and be thoughtfully designed to meet the distinct challenges of different dementia trajectories.

Strengths and Limitations

A key strength of this study is that it is the first comprehensive national research in Slovenia to explore how the unique demands and stressors of dementia care produce differences in informal caregivers’ preferences for telecare devices and their perceived psychosocial outcomes. However, several limitations should be noted. While the sample was sufficient for group comparisons, the use of quota sampling and online surveys may limit generalizability due to potential self-selection bias. Self-reported data also creates the possibility of recall or social desirability biases. Because dementia status was caregiver-reported rather than clinically validated, some misclassification is possible, and results should be interpreted with appropriate caution. This study also did not control for potential confounds, such as dementia severity, caregiving duration, or previous experience with telecare, which may all shape informal caregivers’ perceptions. Additionally, while telecare functionalities were analyzed separately for acceptability, the psychosocial outcomes were considered in aggregate, limiting insights into which technologies might offer specific emotional or psychological benefits.

Future Research

Future studies should seek larger, more diverse samples, especially among dementia caregivers, and account for variations within this group. A study exclusively targeting this population could provide deeper insights into the patterns observed and better contextualize the current study’s findings. Future research should also expand upon distinctions between telecare functionalities and psychosocial outcomes and explore possible complex relationships using multivariate or longitudinal methods. Our results indicate that future work should also examine acceptability in relation to specific types of telecare rather than as a single category and consider the stage of dementia when interpreting caregivers’ responses. Moreover, connecting caregiver-focused and care recipient-focused psychosocial outcomes more explicitly to individual telecare functionalities (e.g., GPS trackers to caregiver reassurance and care recipient safety, or motion sensors to fall prevention and reassurance) would substantially strengthen the practical implications of this line of research. Finally, evaluating the real-world use and effectiveness of tailored telecare solutions would support the design of user-centered technologies that truly benefit informal caregivers and care recipients alike.

Conclusion

This study contributes new evidence from under-researched Slovenian context, where the uptake of digital healthcare is increasing, but the use of telecare in dementia care remains limited. Our findings reveal distinct differences between informal caregivers of older adults with and without dementia, particularly in terms of care burden and telecare perceptions. Informal caregivers of people with dementia reported a greater burden and showed a stronger preference for mobility-related technologies, while both groups recognized psychosocial benefits—especially increased reassurance and reduced worry. However, informal caregivers of those without dementia perceived greater positive impacts on the care recipients’ independence and safety. These findings underscore the importance of personalized telecare approaches that align with the caregivers’ specific contexts. As aging in place becomes a central policy goal, investing in tailored, effective telecare solutions will be essential for supporting both informal caregivers and the older adults for whom they care.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Izidor Natek

Vesna Dolničar

Simona Hvalič-Touzery

Ethical Considerations

The study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee on Research at the Faculty of Social Sciences (ECRFSS) on 12 March 2021 (Reference: 801-2021-020/JG).

Consent to Participate

Prior to participation, all respondents were presented with an informed consent statement at the beginning of the survey. By proceeding with the survey, participants indicated their informed consent to participate in the study.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, and the draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved of the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) under research grants J5-1785 and J5-4578. Additionally, the study was conducted as part of the doctoral training of the first author, who is funded through the “Young Researchers” program within the research program Internet Research (P5-0399), also supported by the ARIS.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the PsychArchives repository, https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14686.

Note

References

Abda

Bolduc

M.-E.

Tsimicalis

Rennick

Vatcher

Brossard-Racine

(2019). Psychosocial outcomes of children and adolescents with severe congenital heart defect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 44(4), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsy085

Akgun-Citak

Attepe-Ozden

Vaskelyte

van Bruchem-Visser

R. L.

Pompili

Kav

Acar

Aksoydan

Altintas

Aytar

Baskici

Blazeviciene

Scarpa

A. R.

Kiziltan

Mattace-Raso

F. U. S.

(2020). Challenges and needs of informal caregivers in elderly care: Qualitative research in four European countries, the TRACE project. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 87(4), 103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2019.103971

Alzheimer’s Association . (2022). 2022 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 18(4), 700–789. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12638

Bartlett

Brannelly

(2019). On being outdoors: How people with dementia experience and deal with vulnerabilities. Social Science & Medicine, 235(5), 112336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.05.041

Boogaard

J. A.

van der Steen

J. T.

de Boer

A. H.

van Groenou

M. I. B.

(2019). How is end-of-life care with and without dementia associated with informal caregivers’ outcomes? The American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care, 36(11), 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909119836932

Brini

Hodkinson

Davies

Hirani

Gathercole

Howard

Newman

S. P.

(2021). In-home dementia caregiving is associated with greater psychological burden and poorer mental health than out-of-home caregiving: A cross-sectional study. Aging & Mental Health, 26(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2021.1881758

Budnick

Hering

Eggert

Teubner

Suhr

Kuhlmey

Gellert

(2021). Informal caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic perceive additional burden: Findings from an ad-hoc survey in Germany. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 353. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06359-7

Chien

S.-Y.

Zaslavsky

Berridge

(2024). Technology usability for people living with dementia: Concept analysis. JMIR Aging, 7(2), e51897. https://doi.org/10.2196/51987

Cook

E. J.

Randhawa

Guppy

Sharp

Barton

Bateman

Crawford-White

(2017). Exploring factors that impact the decision to use assistive telecare: Perspectives of family care-givers of older people in the United Kingdom. Ageing and Society, 38(9), 1912–1932. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x1700037x

10.

Dolničar

Hvalič-Touzery

(2024). Vpliv situacije oskrbovanja na namero za uporabo osebnih alarmnih sistemov med družinskimi oskrbovalci starješih oseb. [The impact of caregiving situation pm the intention to use personal alarm systems among family caregivers of older people]. In Kanjuo-Mrčela

Kohont

(Eds.), Digitalizacija dela in življenja (pp. 279–296). FDV Publishing House.

11.

Dolničar

Hvalič-Touzery

Trkman

Berzelak

Bartol

(2021). Pomoč starejšim osebam s strani družinskih članov ali sorodnikov in njihov odnos do novih tehnologij: Sumarni pregled frekvenčnih porazdelitev in opisnih statistik zbranih podatkov. [Assistance to older people by family members or relatives and their attitudes towards new technologies: A summary overview of frequency distributions and descriptive statistics of the data collected]. Fakulteta za družbene vede, center za družboslovno informatiko.

12.

Dolničar

Petrovčič

Šetinc

Košir

Kavčič

(2017). Understanding acceptance factors for using e-care systems and devices: Insights from a mixed-method intervention study in Slovenia. In Zhou

Salvendy

(Eds.), Human aspects of IT for the aged population. Applications, services and contexts. ITAP 2017 Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 10298, pp. 362–377). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58536-9_29

13.

Doyle

Nwofe

E. S.

Rooke

Seelam

Porter

Bishop

(2024). Implementing global positioning system trackers for people with dementia who are at risk of wandering. Dementia, 23(6), 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/14713012241248556

14.

Ehn

Richardson

M. X.

Landerdahl Stridsberg

Redekop

Wamala-Andersson

(2021). Mobile safety alarms based on GPS technology in the care of older adults: Systematic review of evidence based on a general evidence framework for digital health technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(10), Article e27267. https://doi.org/10.2196/27267

15.

Eurocarers . (2018). Enabling carers to care. An EU strategy to support and empower informal carers. Eurocarers. https://eurocarers.org/eu-strategy-to-support-and-empower-informal-carers-across-europe/

16.

Eurostat . (n.d.). International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=International_Standard_Classification_of_Education_(ISCED)

17.

Firouraghi

Kiani

Jafari

H. T.

Learnihan

Salinas-Perez

J. A.

Raeesi

Furst

Salvador-Carulla

Bagheri

(2022). The role of geographic information system and global positioning system in dementia care and research: A scoping review. International Journal of Health Geographics, 21(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-022-00308-1

18.

Gaugler

J. E.

Zmora

Mitchell

L. L.

Finlay

J. M.

Peterson

C. M.

McCarron

Jutkowitz

(2019). Six-month effectiveness of remote activity monitoring for persons living with dementia and their family caregivers: An experimental mixed methods study. The Gerontologist, 59(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny078

19.

GBD 2019 Dementia Forecasting Collaborators . (2022). Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: An analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. The Lancet. Public Health, 7(2), e105–e125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00249-8

20.

Gérain

Zech

(2019). Informal caregiver burnout? Development of a theoretical framework to understand the impact of caregiving. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1748), 1748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01748

21.

Gibson

Dickinson

Brittain

Robinson

(2019). Personalisation, customisation and bricolage: How people with dementia and their families make assistive technology work for them. Ageing and Society, 39(11), 2502–2519. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x18000661

22.

Givens

J. L.

Lopez

R. P.

Mazor

K. M.

Mitchell

S. L.

(2012). Sources of stress for family members of nursing home residents with advanced dementia. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 26(3), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0b013e31823899e4

23.

Grimmer

Kay

Foot

Pastakia

Kennedy

(2015). Consumer views about aging-in-place. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 10, 1803–1811. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s90672

24.

Guets

Perrier

(2021). Determinants of the need for respite according to the characteristics of informal carers of elderly people at home: Results from the 2015 French national survey. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 995. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06935-x

25.

Guisado-Fernández

Giunti

Mackey

L. M.

Blake

Caulfield

B. M.

(2019). Factors influencing the adoption of smart health technologies for people with dementia and their informal caregivers: Scoping review and design framework. JMIR Aging, 2(1), Article e12192. https://doi.org/10.2196/12192

26.

Hafner-Fink

Broder

Ž.

Doušak

Falle Zorman

Gerdina

Jagodic

Kecman

Kurdija

Miheljak

Uhan

Toš

Vovk

Zašek

Š.

Malnar

(2021). Slovensko javno mnenje 2021/1 – Poročilo o izvedbi raziskave in sumarni pregled rezultatov. [Slovenian public opinion 2021/1 – report on the survey and summary of results]. Center za raziskovanje javnega mnenja in množičnih komunikacij, Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za družbene vede.

27.

Hvalič-Touzery

Dolničar

(2022). The impact of the care situation on the willingness to use telecare among informal carers of older people in Slovenia. Programme & book of abstracts: CoE AgeCare mid-term congress ‘longer lives, better care?’, Tampere, Finland. https://www.fdv.uni-lj.si/docs/default-source/cdi-doc/coe-agecare-midterm-2022-programme_astracts.pdf?sfvrsn=0

28.

Hvalič‐Touzery

Dolničar

Prevodnik

(2022c). Factors influencing informal carers’ acceptance of assistive telecare systems in the pre‐ and post‐implementation phase: A scoping study. Health & Social Care in the Community. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13840

29.

Hvalič-Touzery

Šetinc

Dolničar

(2022d). Benefits of a wearable activity tracker with safety features for older adults: An intervention study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 15723. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315723

30.

Hvalič-Touzery

Smole-Orehek

Dolničar

(2022a). Exploring reciprocity in perceptions on telecare within the informal carer–care receiver dyad. Teorija in Praksa, 58(3) 840–859. https://doi.org/10.51936/tip.58.3.840-859

31.

Hvalič-Touzery

Smole-Orehek

Dolničar

(2022b). Informal caregivers’ perceptions of self-efficacy and subjective well-being when using telecare in the home environment: A qualitative study. Geriatrics, 7(5), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics7050086

32.

Hyejin

Bumjo

Sunyoung

Kiheon

(2021). ADL/IADL dependencies and unmet healthcare needs in older persons: A nationwide survey. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 96(3), 104458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104458

33.

Karg

Graessel

Randzio

Pendergrass

(2018). Dementia as a predictor of care-related quality of life in informal caregivers: A cross-sectional study to investigate differences in health-related outcomes between dementia and non-dementia caregivers. BMC Geriatrics, 18(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0885-1

34.

Karlsen

Moe

C. E.

Haraldstad

Thygesen

(2019). Caring by telecare? A hermeneutic study of experiences among older adults and their family caregivers. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(7-8), 1300–1313. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14744

35.

Kröger

(2022). Care poverty: When older people’s needs remain unmet. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97243-1

36.

Kröger

Mathew Puthenparambil

Van Aerschot

(2019). Care poverty: Unmet care needs in a Nordic welfare state. International Journal of Care and Caring, 3(4), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1332/239788219X15641291564296

37.

Lindeza

Rodrigues

Costa

Guerreiro

Rosa

M. M.

(2020). Impact of dementia on informal care: A systematic review of family caregivers’ perceptions. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, 14(1), e38–e49. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002242

38.

Martikainen

Bartley

Lahelma

(2002). Psychosocial determinants of health in social epidemiology. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31(6), 1091–1093. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.6.1091

39.

McMaster

Fielding

Lim

Moyle

Beattie

AusQo L Group . (2018). A cross-sectional examination of the prevalence of psychotropic medications for people living with dementia in Australian long-term care facilities: Issues of concern. International Psychogeriatrics, 30(7), 1019–1026. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610217002447

40.

Nagode

Črnak-Meglič

Dremelj

Dolničar

Hvalič-Touzery

Istenič

Kobal Tomc

Lebar

Majcen

Natek

Prevolnik Rupel

Rosič

Škafar

Žakelj

(2021). Long-term care – A challenge and an opportunity for a better tomorrow: Evaluation of pilot projects in the field of long-term care: Brief summary. Ministry of Health. https://irssv.si/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Dolgotrajna-oskrba-povzetek-ang_splet1.pdf

41.

Nasrun

M. W. S.

Kusumaningrum

Malik

Kusumaningsih

Harimurti

Prawiroharjo

Mardhiyah

F. S.

Matanta

R. H.

Lalenoh

L. A. P.

Kiasati

S. K.

(2024). Technological acceptance and features needed in mobile health apps development for people living with dementia and their caregivers in Indonesia. Informatics for Health & Social Care, 49(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538157.2024.2328029

42.

Oxford English Dictionary . (nd). Telecare. Retrieved January 23, 2025, from. https://www.oed.comdictionary. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/telecare_n?tl=true

43.

Population Reference Bureau . (2024). 2024 World population data sheet. Population Reference Bureau. https://2024-wpds.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-World-Population-Data-Sheet-Booklet.pdf

44.

Raiber

Visser

Verbakel

(2023). Strategies of informal caregivers to adapt paid work. European Societies, 26(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2023.2207108

45.

Roberts

Mort

Milligan

(2012). Calling for care: “disembodied” work, teleoperators and older people living at home. Sociology, 46(3), 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511422551

46.

Sekhon

Cartwright

Francis

J. J.

(2017). Acceptability of healthcare interventions: An overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Services Research, 17(1), 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8

47.

Smole Orehek

(2022). Psihosocialni učinki uporabe storitev e-oskrbe med zaposlenimi neformalnimi oskrbovalci starejših oseb. [Doctoral disertation]. https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?lang=eng&id=143498

48.

Smole Orehek

Dolničar

Hvalič-Touzery

(2020). The use of eCare services among informal carers of older people and psychological outcomes of their use. Human-computer interaction in information society: Proceedings of the 23rd international multiconference. Ljubljana, Slovenia, 7 October 2020, pp. 52–55.

49.

Spasova

Baeten

Coster

Ghailani

Peña-Casas

Vanhercke

(2018). Challenges in long-term care in Europe. A study of national policies. European Social Policy Network (ESPN). European Commission.

50.

Sriram

Jenkinson

Peters

(2019). Informal carers’ experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: A systematic review. BMC Geriatrics, 19(1), 160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-019-1169-0

51.

Steinsheim

Malmedal

Follestad

Olsen

Saga

(2023). Factors associated with subjective burden among informal caregivers of home-dwelling people with dementia: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics, 23(1), 644. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04358-3

52.

Stokke

(2016). The personal emergency response system as a technology innovation in primary health care services: An integrative review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(7), Article e187. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5727

53.

Tatangelo

McCabe

Macleod

You

(2018). “I just don’t focus on my needs.” The unmet health needs of partner and offspring caregivers of people with dementia: A qualitative study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 77(4), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.09.011

54.

Thordardottir

Malmgren Fänge

Lethin

Rodriguez Gatta

Chiatti

(2019). Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: A systematic review. BioMed Research International, 2019(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9196729

55.

van Exel

N. J. A.

op Reimer

W. J. S.

Brouwer

W. B.

van den Berg

Koopmanschap

M. A.

van den Bos

G. A.

(2004). Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: A comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1191/0269215504cr723oa

56.

Verloo

Kampel

Vidal

Pereira

(2020). Perceptions of technologies to help community-dwelling older adults remain at home: A qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), Article e17930. https://doi.org/10.2196/17930

57.

Vizzotto

A. D. B.

de Oliveira

A. M.

Elkis

Cordeiro

Buchain

P. C.

(2020). Psychosocial characteristics. In Gellman

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine (pp. 1–2). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6439-6

58.

von Elm

Altman

D. G.

Egger

Pocock

S. J.

Gøtzsche

P. C.

Vandenbroucke

J. P.

STROBE Initiative . (2008). The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(4), 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008

59.

White

Wray

Whitfield

(2020). “A fifty mile round trip to change a lightbulb”: An exploratory study of carers’ experiences of providing help, care and support to families and friends from a distance. Health & Social Care in the Community, 28(5), 1632–1642. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12988

60.

Winblad

Amouyel

Andrieu

Ballard

Brayne

Brodaty

Cedazo-Minguez

Dubois

Edvardsson

Feldman

Fratiglioni

Frisoni

G. B.

Gauthier

Georges

Graff

Iqbal

Jessen

Johansson

Jönsson

Zetterberg

(2016). Defeating Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias: A priority for European science and society. The Lancet Neurology, 15(5), 455–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(16)00062-4

61.

World Health Organization . (2025). Dementia. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia

62.

Yusri

N. S. H.

Khairudin

(2024). Navigating the journey: Exploring the personal experiences and psychological needs of informal caregivers. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(5), 1716–1728. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i5/21605

63.

Zigante

(2018). Informal care in Europe: Exploring formalisation, availability and quality. Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/96d27995-6dee-11e8-9483-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

Perceptions of Telecare and Care Burden Among Informal Caregivers of Older Adults With and Without Dementia

Abstract

Keywords

What This Paper Adds

Applications of Study Findings

Introduction

Care Burden

Telecare

Acceptability of Telecare

Perceived Psychosocial Outcomes of Telecare use

Aim of the Study

Methods

Procedures

Measures

Data Analysis

Results

Comparative Sample Characteristics: Older Adults With and Without Dementia

Care Burden

Acceptability of Telecare

Perceived Psychosocial Outcomes

Discussion

Implications

Strengths and Limitations

Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Note

References