Back to Browse Journals » Clinical Interventions in Aging » Volume 2 » Issue 2

Reducing the distance in distance-caregiving by technology innovation

Authors Lazelle E Benefield, Cornelia Beck

Published Date August 2007 Volume 2007:2(2) Pages 267—272

DOI http://dx.doi.org/

Published 14 August 2007

Lazelle E Benefield1, Cornelia Beck2

1College of Nursing, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA; 2Pat & Willard Walker Family Memory Research Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA

Abstract: Family caregivers are responsible for the home care of over 34 million older adults in the United States. For many, the elder family member lives more than an hour’s distance away. Distance caregiving is a growing alternative to more familiar models where: 1) the elder and the family caregiver(s) may reside in the same household; or 2) the family caregiver may live nearby but not in the same household as the elder. The distance caregiving model involves elders and their family caregivers who live at some distance, defined as more than a 60-minute commute, from one another. Evidence suggests that distance caregiving is a distinct phenomenon, differs substantially from on-site family caregiving, and requires additional assistance to support the physical, social, and contextual dimensions of the caregiving process. Technology-based assists could virtually connect the caregiver and elder and provide strong support that addresses the elder’s physical, social, cognitive, and/or sensory impairments. Therefore, in today’s era of high technology, it is surprising that so few affordable innovations are being marketed for distance caregiving. This article addresses distance caregiving, proposes the use of technology innovation to support caregiving, and suggests a research agenda to better inform policy decisions related to the unique needs of this situation.

Keywords: caregiving, family, distance, technology, elders

Download Article [PDF] 

Readers of this article also read:

MRI-based identification of undifferentiated cells: looking at the two faces of Janus

Tomuleasa C, Florian IS, Berce C, Irimie A, Berindan-Neagoe I, Cucuianu A

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:865-866

Published Date: 11 February 2014

Vincristine sulfate liposomal injection for acute lymphoblastic leukemia [Corrigendum]

Soosay Raj TA, Smith AM, Moore AS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2013, 8:4705-4706

Published Date: 5 December 2013

Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% lowered intraocularpressure of normal-tension glaucoma with minimal adverse events [Corrigendum]

Tsumura T, Yoshikawa K, Suzumura H, Kimura T, Sasaki S, Kimura I, Takeda R

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:1363-1364

Published Date: 4 July 2013

Fibrin glue for Gundersen flap surgery

Chung HW, Mehta JS

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:479-484

Published Date: 6 March 2013

Corrigendum

Mizoguchi T, Ozaki M, Unoki K, Dake Y, Eto T, Arai M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2012, 6:1717-1718

Published Date: 26 October 2012

Erratum

Krikeli M, Ekonomopoulou MT, Tzitzikas I, Goutzioulis A, Mystakidou K, Pistevou-Gompaki K

Cancer Management and Research 2011, 3:319-320

Published Date: 5 December 2011

Corrigendum

Schneider EW, Johnson MW

Clinical Ophthalmology 2011, 5:1315-1316

Published Date: 16 September 2011

Corrigendum: Softec HD hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens: biocompatibility and precision

Espandar L, Sikder S, Moshirfar M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2011, 5:159-160

Published Date: 6 February 2011

Erratum

RA Kurt, K Gündüz

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:981-982

Published Date: 6 September 2010