SynthesisBMC geriatrics2026
Emerging technologies and vulnerabilities in older adults with cognitive impairments: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emerging Technologies and Vulnerabilities in Older Adults Without Cognitive Impairments: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, a vast amount of both theoretical and empirical literature has appeared, exploring the ethical implications of emerging technologies (ET) in the context of daily management and care of (frail) older adults. However, to the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive research has been carried out over the impact of ET on older adults’ vulnerability, focusing on older adults with cognitive impairments, who are the main beneficiaries of ET. RESEARCH
aimThis work aims to investigate the ethically-related impact of ET, in particular exploring the impact of ET on cognitively-impaired older adults’ vulnerabilities.
methodsUsing the PRISMA procedure, we conducted a systematic review of empirical (qualitative) evidence exploring the relationship between ET and older adults’ vulnerabilities as perceived by older adults with cognitive impairments. Five major databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Philosopher’s Index) were queried, covering biomedical, philosophical, bioethical, and anthropological literature. 11.631 results were obtained. After duplicates were eliminated, titles, abstracts, and full texts of identified papers were screened for relevance. Eventually, 51 articles were included. Data analysis and synthesis followed the preparatory steps of the coding process detailed in the QUAGOL methodology.
resultsET seem to act in a twofold manner, taming some already existing vulnerabilities, and, at the same time, worsening already existing – or creating new – vulnerabilities. As an example, some Unconventional Monitoring Techniques (e.g., wearables) tame “physical vulnerability”, by providing a sense of safety and constant monitoring, but threat “psychological vulnerability”, causing frustration related to inherent technology’s limitations and to a lack of familiarity with the technology itself.
conclusionsThis systematic study significantly contributes to enriching the ethical debate on the use of technology for the care and assistance of older adults. It shows that, if properly implemented and used, ET can be helpful in taming some dimensions of older adults’ vulnerability, thus contributing to active ageing and/or the containment of physical and psychological deterioration. However, technologies alone cannot mitigate vulnerability in all its dimensions. Indeed, some of these dimensions involve more complex and multi-layered phenomena, thus requiring authentic human intervention and, in some cases, socio-political measures.
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.