Mapping profiles of perceived participation and everyday technology (ET) use, among people with and without dementia in Sweden

Transcription

1 Mapping profiles of perceived participation and everyday technology (ET) use, among people with and without dementia in Sweden Sophie Gaber (PhD Candidate & Reg. OT); Dr Camilla Malinowsky; Prof Louise Nygård Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences & Society (Division of Occupational Therapy)

2 Contents Context & Urgency Knowledge Gap Aim Methods Findings Conclusion & Recommendations How accessible have you found this conference (venue)? 2

3 Agequake Dementia = Global Health Priority (WHO, 2012) Hyper-technological society Ability to use ET is taken for granted Sophie Gaber 3

4 Knowledge Gap Need to consider cognitive aspects of participation. Insufficient knowledge about Everyday Technology (ET) e.g. Smartphones, Public transport, ATMs etc. = help or hindrance to participation in places & activities within public space. Questions relate to whether patterns of participation differ between people living with dementia & people in the same age group without dementia? there is a role for ET in i) promoting participation among older people with & without dementia ii) facilitating Dementia Friendly Communities? 4

5 Aim To explore how profiles of perceived participation within public space relate to the amount of relevant technologies in the environment of people living with and without dementia in a Swedish context. July 29th

6 Methods 6

7 Participation in Total Number of Places Person measure of ability to use ETs Findings Both people with & without dementia participated in a range of places within public space. However compared to the group of people with no known cognitive impairment, the dementia group reported significantly lower: perceived participation in total number of places person measure of perceived ability to use ETs perceived relevance of public space ET perceived relevance of portable ET Key: Dementia Participant Control Participant 7

8 Patterns of Participation: Places associated with Significant Differences between Dementia & Control Groups Dementia Group Control Group Forest, mountain, lake, seaside Day care Doctor's surgery Forest, mountain, lake, seaside Day care Doctor's surgery Bank, Post office Bank, Post office Mall, Supermarket Mall, Supermarket Dementia Group Past Participation (max. 35) Dementia Group Present Participation (max.35) Control Group Past Participation (max. 34) Control Group Present Participation (max. 34) 8

9 Patterns of Participation: Places Abandoned: Consumer, administration, and self-care places Places for medical care Social, spiritual and cultural places Places for recreation and physical activities Places Retained: Consumer, administration, and self-care places Places for medical care Social, spiritual and cultural places Places for recreation and physical activities (Counts across past & present participation) 9

10 Patterns of Participation: Places Abandoned: Consumer, administration, and self-care places Places for medical care Social, spiritual and cultural places Places for recreation and physical activities Places Retained: Consumer, administration, and self-care places Places for medical care Social, spiritual and cultural places Places for recreation and physical activities 10

11 Conclusion & Recommendations The findings challenge the assumption that the physical/virtual world of the person with dementia shrinks (Duggan et al., 2008). This indicates that a number of places & ET (portable/public space) may benefit from being adapted to facilitate a more accessible & dementia friendly society. There is a need to address the complexity & range of participation within an increasingly technological society and among different communities and contexts. To support health & social care planning and more targeted interventions, increased awareness should be directed to the associations between ET relevance (availability/use) & participation in places & activities within public space. 11

12 Acknowledgements & Contacts CACTUS Research GroupCognitive Accessibility and Technology Use when aging in home and Society: The research presented in this presentation was carried out as part of the Marie Curie Innovative Training Network (ITN) action, H2020-MSCAITN-2015, under grant agreement number Follow the research with live field notes on July 29th

13 References Brorsson, A. Access to everyday activities in public space, views of people with dementia. Doctoral thesis, Karolinska Institutet, Duggan S. et al. The impact of early dementia on outdoor life. Dementia 2008; 7(2): Emiliani PL. Assistive technology (AT) versus Mainstream Technology (MST): The research perspective. Technology and Disability 2006; 18: Kielhofner G. (Ed.) Model of human occupation: Theory and application (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Lawton MP, Nahemow L. Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & M.P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging. (pp ). Washington DC: APA, Malinowsky C. et al. Ability to manage everyday technology: A comparison of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation; Assistive Technology 2010; 5: Margot Cattin, I. et al. Development of a questionnaire for older adults with or without dementia: The Participation in ACTivities and Places OUTside Home Questionnaire (ACT-OUT). In manuscript. Mitchell, L. et al. Making the outside world dementia-friendly: design issues and considerations. Planning and Design 2003; 30(4), Nygård, L. et al. Detection of activity limitations in older adults with MCI or Alzheimer s disease through evaluation of perceived difficulty in use of everyday technology: A replication study. Aging & Mental Health 2012;16(3): Phinney A, Chaudhury H, O'Connor DL. Doing as much as I can do: the meaning of activity for people with dementia. Aging & Mental Health 2007; 11(4): Rosenberg L, Nygård, L, Kottorp A. Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire (ETUQ) psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. Occup Ther J Res 2009;29: Wimo A, Winblad B, Jönsson L. The worldwide societal costs of dementia: Estimates for Alzheimer s & Dementia 2010; 6, Winblad B. et al. Defeating Alzheimer s disease and other dementias: a priority for European science and society. Lancet Neurology 2016; 15: World Health Organization. (2012). Dementia: a public health priority. Geneva: World Health Organization. 13