“Like taking part in Star Wars”: A thematic analysis of acceptability and experiences of older adults participating in remote longitudinal sleep and dementia research

preprint OA: gold CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 6,334 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 5 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Sleep disturbance is a common symptom of and potential risk factor for neurodegeneration. Remote sleep and cognitive assessments offer promise for monitoring symptoms and treatment response from patients’ homes, but the acceptability of remote sleep and circadian technology in older adults with and without cognitive impairment is not known.

Objective

This qualitative study was designed to explore and describe the barriers, facilitators, and user experience of older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia and cognitively unimpaired older adults who participated in a longitudinal sleep and memory study designed around remote monitoring technologies.

Methods

Patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia due to probable Alzheimer’s disease or Lewy body disease and age-matched controls participated in a longitudinal remote study involving multimodal assessments of sleep and cognition including actigraphy, wireless electroencephalography, a smartphone app, web-based cognitive tasks, and serial saliva samples. Participants were asked for feedback via questionnaires during the study and invited to complete end-of-study interviews about their experiences. Questions were informed and thematic analysis was guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour model of behaviour change and the extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and focused on perceived barriers and facilitators.

Results

The study identified six key themes. The first theme, ‘motivations to participate’, highlighted how participants felt the research could be helpful to themselves and others. The second theme, ‘navigating the user experience of devices’, identified comfort, security, privacy, ease of use, and reliability as fundamental in determining acceptability. ‘Adjusting over time to study participation’, the third theme, covered changing perceptions with increased exposure and familiarity, and the importance of convenience, flexibility, and developing a routine. The fourth theme explored ‘social support as a facilitator and barrier to research participation’, looking at the influence of both the research team and relatives supporting at home. A fifth theme of ‘adherence, accuracy, and getting it right’ was also identified, as participants were motivated to provide good quality data for the study. Finally, we identified a sixth theme surrounding participants’ ‘reflections, realities, and uncertainties around sleep’, which focused on sleep hygiene and common sleeping problems in older adults, such as snoring and nocturnal awakenings.

Conclusions

Older adults with and without cognitive impairment were motivated to engage in longitudinal remote sleep research, follow remote research protocols, and produce good quality data. Acceptability was related to burden and convenience, usability, and emotional responses to study tasks. When study tasks are repeated over time, care should be taken to introduce variety where possible to avoid fatigue and frustration. Study partners offer essential support for some participants, but requiring a study partner may also be an unnecessary barrier to research participation for others. Future studies should aim to identify effective strategies for recruiting diverse populations, particularly those with limited technology experience or from underserved communities, to ensure equitable participation and representation in research. Providing education on the importance of sleep for brain health and technology use may be beneficial. Competing Interest Statement The authors report no conflicts of interest. EC has received funding from Biogen, Eisai, and Lilly for consultancy and educational contributions. Clinical Protocols Funding Statement BB received EPSRC UKRI funding. JB was funded by a Clinical Research Training Fellowship grant from Alzheimer's Research UK, supported by the Margaret Jost Fellowship and the Don Thoburn Memorial Scholarship, and has also received funding from the David Telling Charitable Trust. HM received funding from a BRACE Charity pilot project funding. Funding was also received from the Bristol & Weston Hospitals Charity (previously Above and Beyond) and NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre. Philanthropic donations were received from S Scobie and A Graham. The funders had no role in the study design, interpretation of findings, or writing of the manuscript. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Health Research Authority Ethics Committee of Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds gave ethical approval for this work (reference 21/YH/0177). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Footnotes ↵* co-first authors Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Abbreviations - AD - Alzheimer’s disease - LBD - Lewy body disease - MCI - mild cognitive impairment - REM - rapid eye movement - RESTED - Remote Evaluation of Sleep to Enhance Understanding of Early Dementia - RMTs - remote monitoring technologies.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0