Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29765211›Full record

SynthesisClinical interventions in aging2018

Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review.

Torhild Holthe, Liv Halvorsrud, Dag Karterud, Kari-Anne Hoel, Anne Lund

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical interventions in aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05196607 (Degrees of New Information and Communication Technologies), which is not on this map. Cited by 94 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05196607 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Degrees of New Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Use Among Surgical Patients (NINASPA Study)

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversidad de ZaragozaRan2021 to 2024Enrolled300ConditionsSurgical Procedure, UnspecifiedArmsSurvey
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

34 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

5 authors.

Torhild HoltheFaculty of Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Liv HalvorsrudFaculty of Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Dag KarterudFaculty of Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Kari-Anne HoelFaculty of Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Anne LundFaculty of Health, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this review was to obtain an overview of the technologies that have been explored with older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia (MCI/D), current knowledge on the usability and acceptability of such technologies, and how people with MCI/D and their family carers (FCs) were involved in these studies. MATERIALS AND

methodsPrimary studies published between 2007 and 2017 that explored the use of technologies for community-dwelling people with MCI/D were identified through five databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, AMED, and CINAHL. Twenty-nine out of 359 papers met the criteria for eligibility. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality assessment.

resultsA wide range of technologies was presented in the 29 studies, sorted into four domains: 1) safe walking indoors and outdoors; 2) safe living; 3) independent living; and 4) entertainment and social communication. The current state of knowledge regarding usability and acceptability reveals that even if researchers are aware of these concepts and intend to measure usability and acceptability, they seem difficult to assess. Terms such as "user friendliness" and "acceptance" were used frequently. User participation in the 29 studies was high. Persons with MCI/D, FCs, and staff/other older adults were involved in focus groups, workshops, and interviews as part of the preimplementation process.

conclusionResearch regarding technologies to support people with MCI/D seems optimistic, and a wide range of technologies has been evaluated in homes with people with MCI/D and their FCs. A major finding was the importance of including people with MCI/D and their FCs in research, in order to learn about required design features to enhance usability and acceptability. Surprisingly, very few studies reported on the consequences of technology use with regard to quality of life, occupational performance, or human dignity.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyIndependent LivingSafetyAgedCognitive DysfunctionCommunicationDementiaHumansQuality of LifeTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalWalkingaging in placeAlzheimer’s diseasecopingdignityquality of lifesafetytechnology

Identifiers

PMID29765211
PMCPMC5942395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.