Wellbeing Effects in Dementia Home Care under Caregiver Technology Burden and Behavioral Adherence
Keywords:
Dementia Care, Assistive Technology, Caregiver Burden, Behavioral Adherence, Wellbeing EffectsAbstract
This study investigates the complex relationships between caregiver technology burden, behavioral adherence, and subjective wellbeing in the context of dementia home care. As digital health technologies and remote monitoring systems are increasingly deployed to support aging-in-place, informal caregivers are faced with new demands that can paradoxically exacerbate existing stress. Utilizing a cross-sectional survey design with 250 informal caregivers of people living with dementia, we proposed and tested a structural equation model to examine the direct and indirect pathways linking technology-induced burden to caregiver psychological wellbeing. The conceptual model posits that technology burden, characterized by cognitive load, system usability challenges, and technical friction, directly diminishes caregiver wellbeing while simultaneously undermining their behavioral adherence to recommended technological and care protocols. The empirical results demonstrate that higher levels of technology burden are associated with a substantial reduction in behavioral adherence, which in turn leads to a significant decline in caregiver subjective wellbeing. Furthermore, behavioral adherence was found to partially mediate the relationship between technology burden and caregiver wellbeing. These findings suggest that the clinical utility of assistive technologies in dementia care is heavily contingent upon minimizing user friction and supporting caregiver self-efficacy. The study highlights the critical need for human-centered design in healthcare informatics and provides practical recommendations for clinicians, technology developers, and healthcare policymakers.References
1. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS Global Survey 2024; International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: Mt. Royal, NJ, USA, 2024.
2. Savic, R.M.; Karlsson, M.O. Importance of shrinkage in empirical bayes estimates for diagnostics: Problems and solutions. AAPS J. 2009, 11, 558–569.
3. Zhou, X.; Dun, J.; Chen, X.; Xiang, B.; Dang, Y.; Cao, D. Predicting the Correct Dose in Children: Role of Computational PBPK Modeling Tools. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2022, 12, 13–26.
4. Craig, M.; Gevertz, J.L.; Kareva, I.; Wilkie, K.P. A practical guide for the generation of model-based virtual clinical trials. Front. Syst. Biol. 2023, 3, 1174647.
5. Mahdy, W.Y.B.; Yamamoto, K.; Ito, T.; Fujiwara, N.; Fujioka, K.; Horai, T.; Otsuka, I.; Imafuku, H.; Omura, T.; Iijima, K.; et al. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model to investigate the effect of pregnancy on risperidone and paliperidone pharmacokinetics: Application to a pregnant woman and her neonate. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2023, 16, 618–630.
6. Frost, C.E.; Song, Y.; Shenker, A.; Wang, J.; Barrett, Y.C.; Schuster, A.; Harris, S.I.; LaCreta, F. Effects of age and sex on the single-dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of apixaban. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2015, 54, 651–662.
7. Edwards, W.; Lindman, H.; Savage, L.J. Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychol. Rev. 1963, 70, 193–242.
8. Wasserstein, R.L.; Lazar, N.A. The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 2016, 70, 129–133.
9. Maxwell, G.P.; Gabriel, A. Breast Implant Design. Gland Surg. 2017, 6, 148–153.
10. Yu, L.; Pan, X.; Cao, X.; Hu, P.; Bao, X. Oxygen Reduction Reaction Mechanism on Nitrogen-Doped Graphene: A Density Functional Theory Study. J. Catal. 2011, 282, 183–190.
11. Jin, C.; Jin, Y.; Ding, Z.; Nuch, K.S.; Han, M.; Shim, J.; Chien, P.N.; Heo, C.Y. Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Wound Repair: From Biology to Therapeutic Innovation. Cells 2025, 14, 1850.
12. Mogie, M. In support of null hypothesis significance testing. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2004, 271, S82–S84.
13. Coombs, D.M.; Grover, R.; Prassinos, A.; Gurunluoglu, R. Breast Augmentation Surgery: Clinical Considerations. Cleve. Clin. J. Med. 2019, 86, 111–122.
14. Peters, S.A. Front Matter. In Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling and Simulations; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. i–xxv.
15. Rowland, M. Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling and Simulations Principles, Methods, and Applications in the Pharmaceutical Industry. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2013, 2, e55.
16. Le, J. Drug Absorption. Available online: https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/clinical-pharmacology/pharmacokinetics/drug-absorption (accessed on 2 February 2026).
17. Miller, K.E.; Hontanilla, B.; Cabello, A.; Marre, D.; Armendariz, L.; Leiva, J. The Effect of Late Infection and Antibiotic Treatment on Capsular Contracture in Silicone Breast Implants: A Rat Model. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2016, 69, 70–76.
18. Rostami-Hodjegan, A.; Al-Majdoub, Z.M.; von Grabowiecki, Y.; Yee, K.L.; Sahoo, S.; Breitwieser, W.; Galetin, A.; Gibson, C.; Achour, B. Dealing With Variable Drug Exposure Due to Variable Hepatic Metabolism: A Proof-of-Concept Application of Liquid Biopsy in Renal Impairment. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2024, 116, 814–823.
19. Greenland, S. Valid P-Values Behave Exactly as They Should: Some Misleading Criticisms of p-Values and Their Resolution With S-Values. Am. Stat. 2019, 73, 106–114.
20. Eurosilicone. M_GCA Combined Catalogue 2019; Eurosilicone: Apt, France, 2019.
21. Hubbard, R.; Bayarri, M.J. Confusion Over Measures of Evidence (p’s) Versus Errors (α’s) in Classical Statistical Testing. Am. Stat. 2003, 57, 171–178.
22. Greenland, S.; Senn, S.J.; Rothman, K.J.; Carlin, J.B.; Poole, C.; Goodman, S.N.; Altman, D.G. Statistical tests, p values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 31, 337–350. [ Central]
23. Kessler, D.A.; Merkatz, R.B.; Schapiro, R. A Call for Higher Standards for Breast Implants. JAMA 1993, 270, 2607–2608.
24. Piccolo, P.P.; Venturi, M.; Mesbahi, A.N.; Nahabedian, M.Y. Current Status Prepectoral and Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction in the USA. Gland Surg. 2023, 12, 1794–1805.
25. Feinstein, A.R. p-values and confidence intervals: Two sides of the same unsatisfactory coin. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51, 355–360.
26. Spanos, A. Recurring controversies about p values and confidence intervals revisited. Ecology 2014, 95, 645–651.
27. Sarwer, D.B. The Psychological Aspects of Cosmetic Breast Augmentation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2007, 120, 110S–117S.
28. Nolan, I.T.; Farajzadeh, M.M.; Boyd, C.J.; Bekisz, J.M.; Gibson, E.G.; Salibian, A.A. Do We Need Acellular Dermal Matrix in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. 2023, 86, 251–260.
29. Bansal, N.; Momin, S.; Bansal, R.; Venkata, S.K.R.G.; Ruser, L.; Yusuf, K. Pharmacokinetics of drugs: Newborn perspective. Pediatr. Med. 2024, 7, 19.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.
