Exploring attitudes of healthcare professionals towards ICT-based interventions for nursing home residents with dementia: a mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) could be useful for delivering non-pharmacological therapies (NPTs) for dementia in nursing home settings. AIMS: To identify technology-related expectations and inhibitions of healthcare professionals associated with the intention to use ICT-based NPTs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multi-method survey. METHODS: N = 205 healthcare professionals completed a quantitative survey on usage and attitudes towards ICTs. Additionally, N = 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted. RESULTS: Participants were classified as intenders to use ICTs (53%), non-intenders (14%) or ambivalent (32%). A MANCOVA revealed higher perceived usefulness for intenders compared to non-intenders and ambivalent healthcare professionals (V =.28, F(12, 292)= 3.94, p <.001). Qualitative interviews revealed generally high acceptance of ICTs in the workplace. Furthermore, benefits for residents emerged as a key requirement. CONCLUSION: Staff trainings should stress specific benefits for residents and healthcare professionals to facilitate successful implementation and acceptance of ICTs in nursing home settings.

[What are the reasons for patient dropout in nursing home residents in an intervention study. An analysis of unit nonresponders in 12 German nursing homes]. / Welche Ausfallursachen liegen bei Pflegeheimbewohner(inne)n in einer Interventionsstudie vor? Eine Analyse der Unit-Nonresponder in zwölf deutschen Pflegeheimen.

BACKGROUND: Non-response bias is a major problem for the validity of survey answers. Analyses of reasons for non-response in surveys with nursing home residents (NHR) are scarce. AIM AND METHOD: The aim of this study was to develop reliable and valid categories which represent reasons for non-response in nursing homes using the "Prozessmodell induktiver Kategorienbildung" following Mayring (2010). Furthermore, characteristics of unit non-responder and responder were compared. RESULTS: Forming of categories of reasons for non-response was conducted with 522 NHR, longitudinally. Four major categories were identified (general refusal, health reasons, accessibility, excessive demand) and further 17 subcategories. Unit-non-responder and responder did not differ in age and sex; however follow-up non-responder showed differences in marital status, training qualification, and cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: The presented scheme of categories can be used to assess reasons for non-response in nursing homes. Standardised assessment of reasons for non-response may contribute to higher response rates in this setting.