ArticleAustralian occupational therapy journal2022
Partnering with people living with dementia and care partners in technology research and design: Reflections and recommendations.
Article in Australian occupational therapy journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Addressing Cognitive Function and Psychological Well-Being in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review on the Use of Technology-Based Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Involving People With Dementia in Research: Contributions, Barriers and Evaluation From a Meta-Synthesis and Qualitative Interview Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- 'Making little ethical decisions all the time': examining an ethical framework for consumer and community involvement in research, a co-produced ethnographic study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Bridging the digital divide for people with aphasia: a study protocol for codesigning web accessibility tools and guidelines.BMJ open · 2025Article
- The involvement of individuals with speech and language impairments in research: insights from a co-creation process.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Between empowerment, patronization, and surveillance. A semi-structured interview study with persons with dementia and family caregivers on the empowering opportunities and perils of intelligent assistive technologies.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- A multi-person reflection on using public and patient involvement and engagement to develop dementia research.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Lessons learned from a design thinking workshop: Intervention design involving persons living with dementia and care partners.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Article
- Reflecting on Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Networks to Evaluate Technological Products for People Living with Dementia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Partnering with people living with dementia and care partners in technology research and design: Reflections and recommendations.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOccupational therapists may recommend and support technology use for facilitating independence, safety, wellbeing, and participation. There are high expectations for technology for people living with dementia. However, there is recognition that technologies will need to improve to deliver these expected benefits. People living with dementia have historically been excluded from direct involvement in research and design. A program of participatory research was undertaken to codesign technologies and technology research with people living with dementia and care partners. This work aims to capture the requirements, actions, and barriers experienced in forming these partnerships in technology research and design.
methodsA shared metareflection of experiences was conducted by members (5) of the research teams involved in three participatory research and technology design studies. The team comprising living experience experts, an occupational therapist, and interaction designer reflected on their experiences and derived recommendations. Key considerations for effective partnerships were drawn inductively by the authors from study experiences, materials, and reflexive discussion.
findingsSix core areas were identified. These were four action areas-(1) Agree on the value; (2) The time to start partnering is now; (3) Ask not assume; and (4) Push back on 'we always have'-(5) barriers and tensions, and (6) unexpected benefits. The reflections indicated that genuine partnerships and engagements were possible with living experience experts in research and design teams. These required resourcing and focussed actions to promote partnership. Despite some structural changes that encourage partnering, there are considerable barriers to this engagement; however, benefits beyond the expected ones can be realised.
conclusionGenuine partnerships in technology research and design with living experience experts are possible and lead to benefits for the team, research outcomes, and technologies. Recommended actions could support expansion of effective partnerships with people living with dementia and care partners as well as other partnerships in research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.