Research & Insights
Follow the evidence to its source. Browse original studies, authoritative guidance, and the reports that inform our work.
18 sources
Study · 2013
Carman and colleagues distinguish degrees of partnership and levels of engagement across the care system.
How to read it: Conceptual framework; the accessible abstract proposes an organizing model, not a trial of genusConnect or a guarantee of outcomes.
Study · 2011
Michie and colleagues introduce COM-B: capability, opportunity, and motivation as conditions for behavior.
How to read it: Framework-development research; the accessible abstract describes evaluation in tobacco control and obesity, not care-app effectiveness.
Study · 2000
Ryan and Deci discuss autonomy, competence, and relatedness in motivation and psychological development.
How to read it: Foundational theoretical review; supports questions about motivation, not claims that a particular digital feature improves health.
Study · 2025
AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving report the scale and experience of family caregiving in the United States.
How to read it: National survey; descriptive estimates of caregiving circumstances, not intervention effects. Released July 24, 2025.
Study · 2014
A daily-diary study of 173 family caregivers of people with dementia compared days when the person attended adult day services with days they did not. Caregivers reported fewer care-related stressors, more positive experiences, and lower anger on service days.
How to read it: Daily-diary study of 173 caregivers; findings concern adult day service days, not the effects of digital family updates. Abstract reviewed.
Guidance · 2025
Definitions that distinguish relationships and support from objective isolation and subjective loneliness.
How to read it: WHO explanation accompanying its Commission on Social Connection report, June 30, 2025; population context does not establish local program impact.
Study · 2025
CDC describes where adult day centers delivered services using the 2022 National Post-acute and Long-term Care Study.
How to read it: Descriptive national report published March 2025 using 2022 data; not a trend estimate or an effectiveness study.
Guidance · 2014
AHRQ organizes ways to examine coordination from patient, professional, and system perspectives.
How to read it: Measurement reference, updated June 2014; select measures for the population and question rather than treating the atlas as an outcome study.
Guidance · 2025
WHO describes assessment, personalized planning, and implementation of care in primary and community settings.
How to read it: Practice guidance published September 22, 2025; a care pathway rather than an engagement theory or product evaluation.
Guidance
The model tests comprehensive dementia care and support for qualifying patients and caregivers.
How to read it: Current CMS program description reviewed September 13, 2026; intended outcomes are model goals, not completed evaluation findings.
Guidance · 2026
Official eligibility, service, partnership, and payment guidance, including changes effective July 1, 2026.
How to read it: CMS FAQ last modified May 22, 2026 and reviewed September 13, 2026; policy rules, not evidence of software effectiveness.
Guidance · 2024
W3C’s testable accessibility criteria for web content, including keyboard, focus, interaction, and authentication needs.
How to read it: Technical accessibility standard; December 12, 2024 Recommendation. Referencing it does not certify a product’s conformance.
Guidance · 2024
A voluntary companion to the AI Risk Management Framework for designing, using, and evaluating generative AI.
How to read it: Cross-sector risk-management guidance published July 26, 2024; not clinical validation or certification.
Guidance · 2024
Practical tools for clear communication, understanding, follow-up, and easier access to care information.
How to read it: Primary-care implementation toolkit, March 1, 2024; application to another setting should be evaluated locally.
Guidance · 2024
A practical framework for designing evaluations and using findings to improve programs.
How to read it: Evaluation guidance published September 26, 2024; distinguishes evaluation purposes and supports explicit questions, methods, and use of findings.
genusConnect report · 2026
genusConnect’s community white paper, research report, and graded claims for the Day Center Companion.
How to read it: genusConnect-authored synthesis and design interpretation. External adult day evidence does not establish outcomes of genusConnect software.
genusConnect report
genusConnect’s explanation of the research and program context behind GUIDE Companion.
How to read it: genusConnect product interpretation, not CMS endorsement, participation approval, reimbursement assurance, or independent validation. Current CMS rules control eligibility.
Study · 1985
A foundational review distinguishes broad benefits of social integration from support that may buffer the effects of stressful experiences.
How to read it: A conceptual and evidence review, not a trial of genusConnect or a guarantee that adding contacts reduces caregiver strain.
How we use evidence
External studies and guidance are identified by source, population, and date. We explain the limits alongside the findings.
genusConnect reports and perspectives explain how evidence informs our design. A promising idea still needs to be tested in its setting.
genusConnect results require documented local evaluation. Evidence for a care service does not establish the effect of an app or feature.
