Preliminary Efficacy of Let’s Talk Tech: Technology Use Planning for Dementia Care Dyads

Abstract

Background and Objective Care partners of people living with dementia require support to knowledgeably navigate decision making about how and when to use monitoring technologies for care purposes. We conducted a pilot study of a novel self-administered intervention, “Let’s Talk Tech,” for people living with mild dementia and their care partners. This paper presents preliminary efficacy findings of this intervention designed to educate and facilitate dyadic communication about a range of technologies used in dementia care and to document the preferences of the person living with dementia. It is the first of its kind decision-making and planning tool with a specific focus on technology use. Research Design and Methods We used a one group pretest, post-test design and paired t-tests to assess change over two time periods in measures of technology comprehension, care partner knowledge of the participant living with mild Alzheimer’s disease’s (AD) preferences, care partner preparedness to make decisions about technology use, and mutual understanding. Thematic analysis was conducted on post-intervention interview transcripts to elucidate mechanisms and experiences with Let’s Talk Tech. Results Twenty-nine mild AD dementia care dyads who live together completed the study. There was statistically significant improvement with medium and large effect sizes on outcome measures of care partners’ understanding of each technology, care partners’ perceptions of the person living with dementia’s understanding of each technology, knowledge of the person living with dementia’s preferences, decision-making preparedness, and care partners’ feelings of mutual understanding. Participants reported that it helped them have important and meaningful conversations about using technology. Discussion and Implications Let’s Talk Tech demonstrated promising preliminary efficacy on targeted measures that can lead to informed, shared decision making about technologies used in dementia care. Future studies should assess efficacy with larger samples and more diverse sample populations in terms of race, ethnicity, and dementia type.

AI Companion Robot Data Sharing: Preferences of an Online Cohort and Policy Implications

“…Risks include shaping expectations with misleading marketing materials that imply that use can “roll back” symptoms of dementia, as well as deception and confusion about who is behind the AI voice—issues frequently raised in the literature (Berridge et al, 2021; Robillard et al, 2020; Wangmo et al, 2019). As reported elsewhere, most of the survey participants reported on in this current paper did not believe that an artificial companion robot would help them feel less lonely if they were feeling lonely and expressed discomfort with the idea of being allowed to believe an AI voice is human should they have dementia (Berridge, Zhou, et al, 2023). As others have discussed, there are significant open efficacy and ethics questions (for example, see Samuel, 2020 and Vallor, 2011) about using robots for care companionship.…”

“…In this paper, we present analyses of the small artificial companionship robot questions about comfort and data preferences (see Appendix A). Responses to questions about perceived potential impact on loneliness and comfort with deception are reported in Berridge, Zhou, et al (2023). Participants were also asked about their comfort with a companion robot in the form of a larger, human‐shaped robot; however, neither of the visual examples used in the survey are currently available on the market, and as such we focus our reporting on findings from questions about the smaller, better‐developed robots that are available.…”

“…All 2,434 members of the RITE cohort were sent the online survey and 1,082 completed it for a response rate of 45%. As described in further detail in Berridge, Zhou, et al (2023), respondents were excluded if they were not living in the community (n=2) and if they did not have data for four core variables of interest, gender (missing=72), age (missing=4), education (missing=150), or memory problem history missing=179), leaving a total of 825 included in the analysis. The gender variable recorded as part of the initial intake for the RITE cohort was a limited binary response option of male and female with a write‐in option.…”

“…Another consideration that others have noted is that in general, older adults may be less familiar than are younger adults with devices that enable constant surveillance, which could negatively impact their privacy (Carver, 2020). Consumer education and evidence-based personalized tools to assist or walk-through the adoption value and risks of AI companion robots could help people and families discuss the nuances of acceptance, conditional acceptance, or rejection of such tools (Berridge, Turner et al, 2023).…”

Technology in Dementia Education: An Ethical Imperative in a Digitized World

“…However, despite these opportunities, the use of technology in dementia education programs is not widespread [12]. This is pertinent given that technology-enabled approaches may be used to significantly improve knowledge about dementia care technologies [13].…”