Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38437014›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2024

Patient and Public Involvement in Technology-Related Dementia Research: Scoping Review.

Pippa Kirby, Helen Lai, Sophie Horrocks, Matthew Harrison, Danielle Wilson, Sarah Daniels, Rafael A Calvo, David J Sharp, Caroline M Alexander

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Family Carer Involvement in Dementia Care Research: A Scoping Review and Expert Consultation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Pippa KirbyDepartment of Therapies, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5289-3347
Helen LaiUK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre (UK DRI CR&T), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1600-8440
Sophie HorrocksUK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre (UK DRI CR&T), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9139-2016
Matthew HarrisonUK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre (UK DRI CR&T), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4905-5737
Danielle WilsonUK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre (UK DRI CR&T), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2105-350X
Sarah DanielsUK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre (UK DRI CR&T), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7415-1907
Rafael A CalvoDyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2238-0684
David J SharpUK Dementia Research Institute, Care Research and Technology Centre (UK DRI CR&T), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4995-2240
Caroline M AlexanderDepartment of Therapies, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1816-8939

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnology-related research on people with dementia and their carers often aims to enable people to remain living at home for longer and prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. To develop person-centered, effective, and ethical research, patient and public involvement (PPI) is necessary, although it may be perceived as more difficult with this cohort. With recent and rapid expansions in health and care-related technology, this review explored how and with what impact collaborations between researchers and stakeholders such as people with dementia and their carers have taken place.

objectiveThis review aims to describe approaches to PPI used to date in technology-related dementia research, along with the barriers and facilitators and impact of PPI in this area.

methodsA scoping review of literature related to dementia, technology, and PPI was conducted using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL. Papers were screened for inclusion by 2 authors. Data were then extracted using a predesigned data extraction table by the same 2 authors. A third author supported the resolution of any conflicts at each stage. Barriers to and facilitators of undertaking PPI were then examined and themed.

resultsThe search yielded 1694 papers, with 31 (1.83%) being analyzed after screening. Most (21/31, 68%) did not make clear distinctions between activities undertaken as PPI and those undertaken by research participants, and as such, their involvement did not fit easily into the National Institute for Health and Care Research definition of PPI. Most of this mixed involvement focused on reviewing or evaluating technology prototypes. A range of approaches were described, most typically using focus groups or co-design workshops. In total, 29% (9/31) described involvement at multiple stages throughout the research cycle, sometimes with evidence of sharing decision-making power. Some (23/31, 74%) commented on barriers to or facilitators of effective PPI. The challenges identified often regarded issues of working with people with significant cognitive impairments and pressures on time and resources. Where reported, the impact of PPI was largely reported as positive, including the experiences for patient and public partners, the impact on research quality, and the learning experience it provided for researchers. Only 4 (13%) papers used formal methods for evaluating impact.

conclusionsResearchers often involve people with dementia and other stakeholders in technology research. At present, involvement is often limited in scope despite aspirations for high levels of involvement and partnership working. Involving people with dementia, their carers, and other stakeholders can have a positive impact on research, patient and public partners, and researchers. Wider reporting of methods and facilitative strategies along with more formalized methods for recording and reporting on meaningful impact would be helpful so that all those involved-researchers, patients, and other stakeholders-can learn how we can best conduct research together.

Indexed as

DementiaPatientsAcademies and InstitutesAltruismHumansTechnologyco-designcoproductiondementiapatient and public involvement and engagementtechnology

Identifiers

PMID38437014
PMCPMC10949132

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.