Kathleen Galvin

Kathleen Galvin


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

28Years (1999-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
7 December 2022 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AKAbraham Kebede
Abraham Kebede
LOLise-Lotte Ozolins
Lise-Lotte Ozolins
HHHanna Holst
Hanna Holst
KGKathleen Galvin
Kathleen Galvin
Background: Digital technologies facilitate everyday life, social connectedness, aging at home, well-being, and dignified care. However, older adults are disproportionately excluded from these benefits. Equal digital opportunities, access, and meaningful engagement require an understanding of older adults’ experience across different stages of the technological engagement life cycle from nonuse and initial adoption to sustained use, factors influencing their decisions, and how the experience changes over time. Objective: Our objectives were to identify the extent and breadth of existing literature on older adults’ perspective on digital engagement and summarize the barriers to and facilitators for technological nonuse, initial adoption, and sustained digital technology engagement. Methods: We used the Arksey and O’Malley framework for the scoping review process. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ACM digital library for primary studies published between 2005 and 2021. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (participants, content, and context) framework. Studies that investigated the digital engagement experience as well as barriers to and facilitators of older adults’ digital technology engagement were included. The characteristics of the study, types of digital technology, and digital engagement levels were analyzed descriptively. Content analysis was used to generate tentative elements using a congruent theme, and barriers and facilitators were mapped over the capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior change model (COM-B) and the theoretical domain framework. The findings were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Results: In total, 96 publications were eligible for the final charting and synthesis. Most of the studies were published over the past 5 years, investigated the initial adoption stage of digital engagement, and focused on everyday technologies. The most cited barriers and facilitators across the engagement stages from each COM-B component were capability (eg, physical and psychological changes and lack of skill), opportunity (eg, technological features, environmental context, and resources), and motivation (eg, optimism from perceived usefulness and beliefs about capability). Conclusions: The COM-B model and theoretical domain framework provide a guide for identifying multiple and intertwined barriers and facilitators at each stage of digital engagement. There are limited studies looking into the whole spectrum of older adults’ digital technology experience; in particular, studies on technological nonuse and sustained use stages are rare. Future research and practice should focus on tailored interventions accounting for the barriers to older adults’ digital engagement and addressing capabilities, motivation, and opportunities; affordable, usable, and useful digital technologies, which address the changes and capability requirements of older adults and are cocreated with a value framework; and lifelong learning and empowerment to develop older adults’ knowledge and skills to cope with digital technology development. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25616

20 December 2008 in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KDKarin Dahlberg
Karin Dahlberg
LTLes Todres
Les Todres
KGKathleen Galvin
Kathleen Galvin

18 July 2006 in Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LTLes Todres
Les Todres
KGKathleen Galvin
Kathleen Galvin
KDKarin Dahlberg
Karin Dahlberg

21 May 2013 in Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
STSarah Thomas
Sarah Thomas
PTPeter W Thomas
Peter W Thomas
PKPaula Kersten
Paula Kersten
RJRosemary Jones
Rosemary Jones
CGColin Green
Colin Green
CHCharles Hillier
Charles Hillier
Background Fatigue is a common and troubling symptom for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Aim To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a six-session group-based programme for managing MS-fatigue (Fatigue: Applying Cognitive behavioural and Energy effectiveness Techniques to lifeStyle (FACETS)). Methods Three-centre parallel arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. Patients with MS and significant fatigue were randomised to FACETS plus current local practice (FACETS) or current local practice alone (CLP), using concealed computer-generated randomisation. Participant blinding was not possible. Primary outcomes were fatigue severity (Fatigue Assessment Instrument), self-efficacy (Multiple Sclerosis-Fatigue Self-Efficacy) and disease-specific quality of life (Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)) at 1 and 4 months postintervention (follow-up 1 and 2). Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated (EuroQoL 5-Dimensions questionnaire and the Short-form 6-Dimensions questionnaire). Results Between May 2008 and November 2009, 164 patients were randomised; primary outcome data were available for 146 (89%). Statistically significant differences favour the intervention group on fatigue self-efficacy at follow-up 1 (mean difference (MD) 9, 95% CI (4 to 14), standardised effect size (SES) 0.54, p=0.001) and follow-up 2 (MD 6, 95% CI (0 to 12), SES 0.36, p=0.05) and fatigue severity at follow-up 2 (MD −0.36, 95% CI (−0.63 to −0.08), SES −0.35, p=0.01) but no differences for MSIS-29 or QALYs. No adverse events reported. Estimated cost per person for FACETS is £453; findings suggest an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2157 per additional person with a clinically significant improvement in fatigue. Conclusions FACETS is effective in reducing fatigue severity and increasing fatigue self-efficacy. However, it is difficult to assess the additional cost in terms of cost-effectiveness (ie, cost per QALY) as improvements in fatigue are not reflected in the QALY outcomes, with no significant differences between FACETS and CLP. The strengths of this trial are its pragmatic nature and high external validity. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76517470.

25 January 2006 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PTP W Thomas
P W Thomas
STS Thomas
S Thomas
CHC Hillier
C Hillier
KGKathleen Galvin
Kathleen Galvin
RBR Baker
R Baker

21 February 2018 in European Respiratory Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AHAnn Hutchinson
Ann Hutchinson
NBNatalie Barclay-Klingle
Natalie Barclay-Klingle
KGKathleen Galvin
Kathleen Galvin
MJMiriam J. Johnson
Miriam J. Johnson
What is the experience of people living with breathlessness due to medical conditions, those caring for them and those treating them, with regard to quality of life and the nature of clinical interactions?Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) were searched (January 1987 to October 2017; English language), for qualitative studies exploring the experience of chronic breathlessness (patients, carers and clinicians). Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and papers retrieved against inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. Primary qualitative data were extracted and synthesised using thematic synthesis.Inclusion and synthesis of 101 out of 2303 international papers produced four descriptive themes: 1) widespread effects of breathlessness; 2) coping; 3) help-seeking behaviour; and 4) clinicians’ responsiveness to the symptom of breathlessness. The themes were combined to form the concept of “breathing space”, to show how engaged coping and appropriate help-seeking (patient) and attention to symptom (clinician) helps maximise the patient's quality of living with breathlessness.Breathlessness has widespread impact on both patient and carer and affects breathing space. The degree of breathing space is influenced by interaction between the patient's coping style, their help-seeking behaviour and their clinician's responsiveness to breathlessness itself, in addition to managing the underlying disease.