Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31517029›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2019

Assessment of need and practice for assistive technology and telecare for people with dementia-The ATTILA (Assistive Technology and Telecare to maintain Independent Living At home for people with dementia) trial.

Kirsty Forsyth, Catherine Henderson, Lucy Davis, Anusua Singh Roy, Barbara Dunk, Eleanor Curnow, Rebecca Gathercole, Natalie Lam, Emma Harper, Iracema Leroi and 22 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Dementia Care, Fall Detection, and Ambient-Assisted Living Technologies Help Older Adults Age in Place: A Scoping Review.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

32 authors at 16 institutions in 1 country.

Kirsty ForsythSchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.
Catherine HendersonPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Lucy DavisClinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford, UK.
Anusua Singh RoySchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.
Barbara DunkSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, The Maudsley, UK.
Eleanor CurnowSchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.
Rebecca GathercoleDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.
Natalie LamClinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford, UK.
Emma HarperClinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford, UK.
Iracema LeroiSchool of Community Based Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
John WoolhamSocial Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, UK.
Chris FoxSchool of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
John O'BrienDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Andrew BatemanOliver Zangwill Centre for Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, Princess of Wales Hospital, Ely, UK.
Fiona PolandSchool of Allied Health Professionals, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Peter BenthamThe Barberry Centre, Birmingham, UK.
Alistair BurnsSchool of Community Based Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Anna DaviesSchool of Community and Health Science, City University, London, UK.
Richard GrayClinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford, UK.
Rosie BradleyClinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford, UK.
Martin KnappDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.
Stanton NewmanSchool of Community and Health Science, City University, London, UK.
Rupert McShaneOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Warneford Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK.
Craig RitchieCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Emma TalbotNorfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Suffolk, UK.
Emma HooperLantern Centre, Preston, UK.
Rachel WinsonCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, Oliver Zangwill Centre, Ely, UK.
Bethany ScuttDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.
Victoria OrdonezCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, Oliver Zangwill Centre, Ely, UK.
Samantha NunnCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, Oliver Zangwill Centre, Ely, UK.
Grace LavelleDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.
Robert HowardDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBPsychiatry Research Trust · GBCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust · GBQueen Margaret University · GBCity, University of London · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBKing's College London · GBLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBNorfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust · GBPrincess of Wales Hospital · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBWarneford Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/50/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe objective of this study was to define current assistive technology and telecare (ATT) practice for people with dementia living at home.

methodsThis is a randomized controlled trial (N = 495) of ATT assessment and ATT installation intervention, compared with control (restricted ATT package). ATT assessment and installation data were collected. Qualitative work identified value networks delivering ATT, established an ATT assessment standard.

resultsATT was delivered by public and not-for-profit telecare networks. ATT assessments showed 52% fidelity to the ATT assessment standard. Areas of assessment most frequently leading to identifying ATT need were daily activities (93%), memory (89%), and problem-solving (83%). ATT needs and recommendations were weakly correlated (τ = 0.242; DISCUSSION: Assessment recommendations were routinely disregarded at the point of installation. ATT was commonly recommended for safety and seldom for supporting leisure.

Indexed as

Assessment of needAssistive technologyATTILACommunity-dwellingDementiaTelecare

Identifiers

PMID31517029
PMCPMC6728826
OpenAlexW2971555731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.