| Title |
How to respond to resistiveness towards assistive technologies among persons with dementia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-017-9816-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anders Nordgren |
| Abstract |
It is a common experience among care professionals that persons with dementia often say 'no' to conventional caring measures such as taking medication, eating or having a shower. This tendency to say 'no' may also concern the use of assistive technologies such as fall detectors, mobile safety alarms, Internet for social contact and robots. This paper provides practical recommendations for care professionals in home health care and social care about how to respond to such resistiveness towards assistive technologies. Apart from the option of accepting the 'no', it discusses a number of methods for influencing persons with dementia in order to overcome the 'no'. These methods range from various non-coercive measures-including nudging-to coercion. It is argued that while conventional caring measures like those mentioned are essential for survival, health or hygiene, assistive technologies are commonly merely potentially beneficial supplements. With this in mind, it is concluded that care professionals should be more restrictive in using methods of influence involving some degree of pressure regarding assistive technologies than regarding conventional caring measures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 12% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 29 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2019.
All research outputs
#12,765,116
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#262
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,327
of 439,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.