Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26205957›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2015

The everyday use of assistive technology by people with dementia and their family carers: a qualitative study.

Grant Gibson, Claire Dickinson, Katie Brittain, Louise Robinson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
35.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 175 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Person-Centered Technology for Older Adults: Benefits, Limitations, and Considerations in Design and Use.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  10. Invested Partner Feedback on Technology Assistance in Dementia (Tech-AiD).Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Grant GibsonSchool of Applied Social Sciences, Colin Bell Building, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK. grant.gibson@stir.ac.uk.
Claire DickinsonInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle Biomedical Research Building, Newcastle University, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK. claire.dickinson@ncl.ac.uk.
Katie BrittainInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle Biomedical Research Building, Newcastle University, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK. katie.brittain@ncl.ac.uk.
Louise RobinsonInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle Biomedical Research Building, Newcastle University, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK. a.l.robinson@ncl.ac.uk.
Newcastle University · GBUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssistive Technology (AT) has been suggested as a means by which people with dementia can be helped to live independently, while also leading to greater efficiencies in care. However little is known about how AT is being used by people with dementia and their carers in their daily routines. This paper reports on a qualitative study exploring the everyday use of AT by people with dementia and their families.

methodsThe research employed a qualitative methodology. Semi structured interviews took place with 39 participants, 13 people with dementia and 26 carers. Key themes were identified using thematic analysis and the constant comparative method.

resultsThree categories of AT use in everyday settings were identified; formal AT, accessed via social care services, 'off the shelf AT' purchased privately, and 'do it yourself' AT, everyday household products adapted by families to fulfil individual need in the absence of specific devices. Access to AT was driven by carers, with the majority of benefits being experienced by carers. Barriers to use included perceptions about AT cost; dilemmas about the best time to use AT; and a lack of information and support from formal health and social care services about how to access AT, where to source it and when and how it can be used.

conclusionsIt has been argued that the 'mixed economy' landscape, with private AT provision supplementing state provision of AT, is a key feature for the mainstreaming of AT services. Our data suggests that such a mixed economy is indeed taking place, with more participants using 'off the shelf' and 'DIY' AT purchased privately rather than via health and social care services. However this system has largely arisen due to an inability of formal care services to meet client needs. Such findings therefore raise questions about just who AT in its current provision is working for and whether a mixed market approach is the most appropriate provider model. Everyday technologies play an important role in supporting families with dementia to continue caring; further research is needed however to determine the most effective and person-centred models for future AT provision.

Indexed as

DementiaHome NursingSelf-Help DevicesAdultAgedCaregiversFemaleHumansIndependent LivingMaleNeeds AssessmentQualitative ResearchSocial SupportUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26205957
PMCPMC4514453
OpenAlexW1631156448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.