Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31196003›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2019

Informal carers' experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: a systematic review.

Vimal Sriram, Crispin Jenkinson, Michele Peters

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.3field-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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 167 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Socially assistive robots and meaningful work: the case of aged care.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vimal SriramHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. vimal.sriram@dph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2139-8591
Crispin JenkinsonHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Michele PetersHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDementia is a health and care priority globally. Caring for persons with dementia is a challenge and can lead to negative psychological, physiological and financial consequences for informal carers. Advances in technology have the potential to assist persons with dementia and their carers, through assistive technology devices such as electronic medication dispensers, robotic devices trackers and motion detectors. However, little is known about carers' experience and the impact of these technologies on them. This review aims to investigate the outcomes and experience of carers of persons with dementia, who live at home and use assistive technology.

methodsA systematic search in seven databases and manual searches were carried out using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify studies on carers of persons with dementia involving the use of assistive technology. The search identified 56 publications with quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method designs.

resultsThe studies reported positive and negative findings and focused on a wide variety of assistive technology devices. There were large differences in the uses of assistive technology, outcome measures used and the quality of studies. Knowledge and acceptance, competence to use and ethical issues when using assistive technology were themes that emerged from the studies. Carers generally appreciated using assistive technology and their experience of use varied.

conclusionsThe intention of this systematic review is to list and classify the various types of assistive technology used by carers of persons with dementia and explores the positive and negative aspects, knowledge, acceptance and ethical issues in the use of assistive technology by carers of persons with dementia. We recommend the use of a standard and person-centred system of classifying and naming assistive technology devices and systems and for future research efforts in assistive technology to incorporate a family/carer centred model. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42017082268 .

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingDementiaIndependent LivingSelf-Help DevicesAgedCaregiversHumansAssistive technologyCarersDementiaQuality of lifeSystematic reviewWell-being

Identifiers

PMID31196003
PMCPMC6567448
OpenAlexW2949690215

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.