Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33967901›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2021

Usability and User Experience of Cognitive Intervention Technologies for Elderly People With MCI or Dementia: A Systematic Review.

Leslie María Contreras-Somoza, Eider Irazoki, José Miguel Toribio-Guzmán, Isabel de la Torre-Díez, Angie Alejandra Diaz-Baquero, Esther Parra-Vidales, María Victoria Perea-Bartolomé, Manuel Ángel Franco-Martín

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Leslie María Contreras-SomozaFaculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Eider IrazokiFaculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
José Miguel Toribio-GuzmánDepartment of Research and Development, Iberian Institute of Research in Psycho-Sciences, INTRAS Foundation, Zamora, Spain.
Isabel de la Torre-DíezDepartment of Signal Theory and Communications, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Angie Alejandra Diaz-BaqueroDepartment of Research and Development, Iberian Institute of Research in Psycho-Sciences, INTRAS Foundation, Zamora, Spain.
Esther Parra-VidalesDepartment of Research and Development, Iberian Institute of Research in Psycho-Sciences, INTRAS Foundation, Zamora, Spain.
María Victoria Perea-BartoloméFaculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Manuel Ángel Franco-MartínFaculty of Psychology, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIncorporating technology in cognitive interventions represents an innovation, making them more accessible, flexible, and cost-effective. This will not be feasible without adequate user-technology fit. Bearing in mind the importance of developing cognitive interventions whose technology is appropriate for elderly people with cognitive impairment, the objective of this systematic review was to find evidence about usability and user experience (UX) measurements and features of stimulation, training, and cognitive rehabilitation technologies for older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia.

methodThe Medline, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PsycINFO databases were searched for literature published in the last 10 years (2009-2019), and three researchers independently reviewed potentially eligible studies, following specific inclusion criteria. A systematic review of the studies was conducted, presenting a qualitative synthesis of usability and UX measures with their outcomes, study characteristics and features of the cognitive intervention technologies.

resultsTen studies were selected: five were cognitive stimulation and five were cognitive training. Most of them (60%) were computer-based programs with a serious game format. Efficiency and effectiveness were the most frequent measurements used for collecting objective usability data, showing that elderly people with cognitive impairment require more time (45%) and help (40%) but can complete tasks (60%). Regarding UX or subjective usability data, questionnaires and scales were the most used methods, reporting positive experience despite certain difficulties with the interface in five studies.

conclusionMeasuring usability and UX in cognitive intervention technologies for older adults with MCI or dementia provides an integrated view that can contribute to their development according to the needs and characteristics of the target population. More research is required to include this population group in usability and UX studies, as well as standardized tools and consensus on the relationship of these terms to guarantee the future effectiveness of cognitive intervention technologies. REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42020158147) International Register of Systematic Review Protocols.

Indexed as

cognitive interventiondementiaMCItechnologyusabilityuser experience

Identifiers

PMID33967901
PMCPMC8100576

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.