Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38327502›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2023

A systematic review of gerontechnologies to support aging in place among community-dwelling older adults and their family caregivers.

Alexander Moreno, Maria-Cristina Scola, Hua Sun, Henrick Durce, Célia Couve, Kelly Acevedo, Gloria M Gutman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. HCI and Older Adults: The Critical Turn and What Comes Next.Foundations and trends in human computer interaction · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Alexander Moreno *Department of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Maria-Cristina Scola *Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal, CIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Hua SunDepartment of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Henrick DurceDepartment of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Célia CouveDepartment of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Kelly AcevedoDepartment of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Gloria M GutmanGerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Paucity of information concerning the efficacy of gerontechnologies to support aging in place among community-dwelling older adults prevents potential users, healthcare professionals, and policymakers from making informed decisions on their use. The goal of this study was to identify gerontechnologies tested for home support in dyads of community-dwelling older adults with unimpaired cognition and their family caregivers, including their benefits and challenges. We also provide the level of evidence of the studies and recommendations to address the specific challenges preventing their use, dissemination, and implementation. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature published between 2016 and 2021 on gerontechnologies tested for home support in dyads. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer resolved eligibility discrepancies. Data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers. Results: Of 1,441 articles screened, only 13 studies met the inclusion criteria with studies of moderate quality. Mostly, these gerontechnologies were used to monitor the older adult or the environment, to increase communication with family caregivers, to assist in daily living activities, and to provide health information. Benefits included facilitating communication, increasing safety, and reducing stress. Common challenges included difficulties using the technologies, technical problems, privacy issues, increased stress and dissatisfaction, and a mismatch between values and needs. Conclusion: Only a few gerontechnologies have proven efficacy in supporting community-dwelling older adults and their family caregivers. The inclusion of values and preferences, co-creation with end users, designing easy-to-use technologies, and assuring training are strongly recommended to increase acceptability and dissemination. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=310803, identifier CRD42022310803.

Indexed as

AgeTechAgingAging in placeCommunity-Dwelling Older Adults (CDOA)Family Caregivers (FC)GerontechnologyHome supportOlder adult

Identifiers

PMID38327502
PMCPMC10847552

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.