First, one investigator independently colour coded each piece of extracted data according to the group of focus (doctors, patients, caregivers, and technology).
We conducted a systematic review of published literature to gain a better understanding of the roles that different parties – specifically doctors, patients, family caregivers, and technology – play in establishing and maintaining informational continuity of care within family practice.
We conducted a systematic review in order to gain a better understanding of the roles different parties – namely doctors, patients, caregivers, and technology – play in developing informational continuity of care within family practice.
An alternative is to use patient- and caregiver-facing technologies to collect information on mental, social or physical status and integrate these data into the EHR.
But the realistic truth of the matter is that we can only relieve the burdens placed on caregivers by embracing technology".
Social influence may not have an impact on behavioural intention because of a difference in attitude between caregivers and typical technology users.
We asked: What roles do patients, family caregivers, doctors, and technology play in establishing/maintaining informational continuity of care within family practice?
We focus in this article on a question used in the review pertaining to roles: What roles do patients, family caregivers, doctors, and technology play in establishing/maintaining informational continuity of care within family practice?
[Sheila; family caregivers; prior assistive technology use; focus group] The findings as a whole indicate that these patients, family caregivers and health professionals with an interest in this area were all hopeful about the potential of assistive technologies to facilitate self-management and improve upper-limb recovery in stroke.
[Mary; family caregivers; prior assistive technology use; focus group 3] One patient and his wife, who reported gaining benefits from a trial of an upper-limb assistive technology, were frustrated that the commissioners based their funding decisions on generic evidence rather than on what they believed had already been proven to 'work' for them.
