Identifying unmet needs of informal dementia caregivers in clinical practice: User-centered development of a digital assessment tool
Open accessAbstract
Background: Despite the increasing interventions to support family caregivers of people with dementia, service planning and delivery is still not effective. Objective: Our study aimed to develop a digitally-supported needs assessment tool for family caregivers of people with dementia that is feasible, time-efficient, understood by users, and can be self-completed in the primary care setting. Methods: The development of the unmet needs assessment tool was part of a cluster-randomized controlled trial examining the effectiveness of a digitally supported care management programme to reduce unmet needs of family caregivers of people with dementia (GAIN [Gesund Angehörige Pflegen]) and was conducted in 3 phases. Using an iterative participatory approach with informal caregivers, health care professionals including general practitioners, neurologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurses, and Alzheimer Society representatives, we developed a digital self-completion unmet needs assessment tool focusing on informal caregivers' biopsychosocial health und quality of life in connection to their caregiver responsibilities. Data were collected through group discussions, written feedback, protocols, think-aloud protocols, and interviews, and analyzed thematically. Results: Data from 27 caregivers, including caregivers of people with dementia (n=18), health care professionals (n=7), and Alzheimer Society representatives (n=2) were collected. Thematic analysis identified 2 main themes: content of the assessment tool and usability and handling of the digital tablet-based assessment tool. The feedback provided by the stakeholders led to new aspects and changes to make the tool comprehensive, easy to read, and easy to handle. The overall mean completion time was reduced from the initial 37 minutes to 18 minutes, which renders the assessment tool fit to be self-completed in waiting rooms of primary care practices or other settings. Conclusions: The input of the 3 stakeholder groups has supported the development of the assessment tool ensuring that all aspects considered important were covered and understood and the completion of the assessment procedure was time-efficient and practically feasible. Further validation of the assessment tool will be performed with the data generated as part of the GAIN trial.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The issue is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of structured implementation pathways, leadership, and policy levers.
“The issue is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of structured implementation pathways, leadership, and policy levers [7,8,9,10].”
From Home care comparison (2026) · cites this paper as [9]
The Introduction (page unavailable) says individualized caregiver interventions are underused in practice despite the development of support interventions, and the Discussion > Limitations (page unavailable) discusses an approach that might improve implementation in routine care. This supports an implementation-gap reading, but the paper does not identify a lack of leadership or policy levers as the issue. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [9]Schneider J Murray J Banerjee S Mann A EUROCARE: a cross-national study of co-resident spouse carers for people with Alzheimer’s disease: I--Factors associated with carer burden Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Aug 1999 14 8 651 661 doi 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1166(199908)14:83.0.CO;2-B Medline 10489656 · DOI
- Authors
- Biernetzky, O. A., Thyrian, J. R., Boekholt, M., Berndt, M., Hoffmann, W., Teipel, S. J., & Kilimann, I.
- Affiliations
- Universitätsmedizin Greifswald (DE)
- Universitätsmedizin Rostock (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Biernetzky, Olga A
- ORCID
- Venue
- JMIR Aging
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2025-04-07
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- e59942-e59942
- ISSN
- 2561-7605 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11996146
- OpenAlex
- W4405711564
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 1.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Aging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DZNE Pub (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- dementia, informal caregivers, family caregivers, unmet needs, needs assessment tool, digital assessment tools, tablet-based assessment, primary care, user-centered design, participatory development, caregiver quality of life, usability
- MeSH terms
- User-Centered Design, Aged, Dementia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Caregivers, Needs Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review