Presentation
Building Connections Between Persons Living with Dementia and Care Partners Through Virtual Reality
DescriptionVirtual Reality (VR) therapies are becoming increasingly common for Persons Living with Dementia (PLwD), with most studies revealing that these technologies can improve well-being. However, this past work has been primarily conducted in long-term care homes or community program settings with trained researchers and/or formal care partners. Comparatively little research has explored the potential of utilizing VR in an at-home setting and for the purpose of enhancing social connections between PLwD and their family care partners. VR provides a unique opportunity for families to be transported to alternate realities and have experiences that they may no longer be able to have due to the diagnosis (e.g., travelling to a different country, attending concerts). Thus, the goal of the present study was to design and evaluate a VR at-home intervention (VRx@Home) that presents these experiences and that could help facilitate communication between PLwD and their family care partners, in turn improving connectedness and communication. We also aimed to explore whether immersive VR led to different outcomes when compared to traditional tablet-based technology.
Participating families experienced both VR and tablet technologies in their own home. In the VR condition, PLwD watched 360-degree videos while wearing a head mounted VR display and the care partner watched the same content on a paired tablet. In the Tablet-only condition, PLwD and care partner watched 360-degree videos together on the same tablet. The study began with equipment drop off and training, and collection of baseline data (e.g., communication questionnaire). Next, families either first received 2 weeks of the VR condition or 2 weeks of the Tablet-only condition. Each week, families had a virtual session with the researcher during which they watched a 20-min set of videos across four themes (animals, travel, sport, and entertainment). The experience was followed by a semi-structured interview capturing participants’ preferences and feedback regarding the session. In addition, participants were asked to try using the devices on their own, which they all did. A second home visit was made to exchange devices and provide further training if needed. At the end of the 4-week intervention, participants completed a final interview, and the intervention ended with the final home visit for equipment pickup. All sessions (with researcher and on-own) were video recorded through Zoom videoconferencing software.
In total, 25 PLwD (age range 59 to 96, Mage= 79, Female = 52%) and 25 care partners (age range 32 to 79, Mage= 62, Female = 80%) took part in the intervention. There were 11 parent-child pairs and 14 spouse pairs. Twenty pairs completed the full 4-week intervention, while 5 pairs completed 1 to 3 weeks of the intervention. Out of these five pairs, two PLwD dropped early specifically because they did not like the VR headset, and others dropped for reasons irrelevant to the technology (e.g., moving to long-term care).
We report device preferences from all pairs who completed the full intervention. Overall, preferences for VR and tablet were quite similar, with 18 preferring VR (7 PLwD, 11 care partners), 17 preferring Tablet-only (10 PLwD, 7 care partners), and 5 choosing both devices with equal preference (3 PLwD, 2 care partners). Some of the common explanations for preferring tablet over VR was comfort and ease of use, whereas common explanations for preferring VR over tablet was because it was engaging and novel. Participants reported their preferences for content after watching the pre-selected videos from each theme during weekly sessions and at the end of the study during the final interview. The top favourite themes collapsed across all interviews from all PLwD and care partner participants (including those who withdrew early) were entertainment and animals. Preliminary results for communication outcomes based on a survey completed by care partners before the intervention (baseline) and after each phase of intervention (weeks 2 and 4) revealed that both VR and tablet facilitated communication relative to baseline, however VR did so to a greater extent. Specifically, conversations were rated on average as more frequent, natural, engaging, enjoyable, and longer during the VR intervention compared to baseline. Tablet was also rated on average higher on these measures than baseline, but the effect was smaller in magnitude and did not always reach significance.
Together, these results show that despite variability in content and device preferences, VR technology can help facilitate communication and build social connections between PLwD and their care partners.
Participating families experienced both VR and tablet technologies in their own home. In the VR condition, PLwD watched 360-degree videos while wearing a head mounted VR display and the care partner watched the same content on a paired tablet. In the Tablet-only condition, PLwD and care partner watched 360-degree videos together on the same tablet. The study began with equipment drop off and training, and collection of baseline data (e.g., communication questionnaire). Next, families either first received 2 weeks of the VR condition or 2 weeks of the Tablet-only condition. Each week, families had a virtual session with the researcher during which they watched a 20-min set of videos across four themes (animals, travel, sport, and entertainment). The experience was followed by a semi-structured interview capturing participants’ preferences and feedback regarding the session. In addition, participants were asked to try using the devices on their own, which they all did. A second home visit was made to exchange devices and provide further training if needed. At the end of the 4-week intervention, participants completed a final interview, and the intervention ended with the final home visit for equipment pickup. All sessions (with researcher and on-own) were video recorded through Zoom videoconferencing software.
In total, 25 PLwD (age range 59 to 96, Mage= 79, Female = 52%) and 25 care partners (age range 32 to 79, Mage= 62, Female = 80%) took part in the intervention. There were 11 parent-child pairs and 14 spouse pairs. Twenty pairs completed the full 4-week intervention, while 5 pairs completed 1 to 3 weeks of the intervention. Out of these five pairs, two PLwD dropped early specifically because they did not like the VR headset, and others dropped for reasons irrelevant to the technology (e.g., moving to long-term care).
We report device preferences from all pairs who completed the full intervention. Overall, preferences for VR and tablet were quite similar, with 18 preferring VR (7 PLwD, 11 care partners), 17 preferring Tablet-only (10 PLwD, 7 care partners), and 5 choosing both devices with equal preference (3 PLwD, 2 care partners). Some of the common explanations for preferring tablet over VR was comfort and ease of use, whereas common explanations for preferring VR over tablet was because it was engaging and novel. Participants reported their preferences for content after watching the pre-selected videos from each theme during weekly sessions and at the end of the study during the final interview. The top favourite themes collapsed across all interviews from all PLwD and care partner participants (including those who withdrew early) were entertainment and animals. Preliminary results for communication outcomes based on a survey completed by care partners before the intervention (baseline) and after each phase of intervention (weeks 2 and 4) revealed that both VR and tablet facilitated communication relative to baseline, however VR did so to a greater extent. Specifically, conversations were rated on average as more frequent, natural, engaging, enjoyable, and longer during the VR intervention compared to baseline. Tablet was also rated on average higher on these measures than baseline, but the effect was smaller in magnitude and did not always reach significance.
Together, these results show that despite variability in content and device preferences, VR technology can help facilitate communication and build social connections between PLwD and their care partners.
Authors
Event Type
Oral Presentations
TimeMonday, March 312:00pm - 2:30pm EDT
LocationPier 2/3
Digital Health (DH)