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:

Osteogenic cell differentiation on H-terminated and O-terminated nanocrystalline diamond films

Liskova J, Babchenko O, Varga M, Kromka A, Hadraba D, Svindrych Z, Burdikova Z, Bacakova L

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2015, 10:869-884

Published Date: 27 January 2015

Melanocytoma of the ciliary body misdiagnosed as iridodialysis

Kim M, Lee SJ

Clinical Ophthalmology 2014, 8:1051-1053

Published Date: 29 May 2014

Applanation tonometry: a comparison of the Perkins handheld and Goldmann slit lamp-mounted methods

Arora R, Bellamy H, Austin MW

Clinical Ophthalmology 2014, 8:605-610

Published Date: 26 March 2014

Small-aperture corneal inlay in patients with prior radial keratotomy surgeries

Huseynova T, Kanamori T, Waring GO IV, Tomita M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:1937-1940

Published Date: 26 September 2013

Comparison of anti-EGFR-Fab’ conjugated immunoliposomes modified with two different conjugation linkers for siRNA delivery in SMMC-7721 cells

Deng L, Zhang Y, Ma L, Jing X, Ke X, Lian J, Zhao Q, Yan B, Zhang J, Yao J, Chen J

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2013, 8:3271-3283

Published Date: 26 August 2013

Correlation between vascular endothelial growth factor and nonperfused areas in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion

Fujikawa M, Sawada O, Miyake T, Kakinoki M, Sawada T, Kawamura H, Ohji M

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:1497-1501

Published Date: 19 July 2013

Fibrin glue for Gundersen flap surgery

Chung HW, Mehta JS

Clinical Ophthalmology 2013, 7:479-484

Published Date: 6 March 2013