ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Areaalzheimer: development of a digital platform for caregivers based on the results of a needs analysis and mixed-methods pilot evaluation process.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study describes the user-centred design and evaluation of Methods: Following an iterative, participatory design approach, 419 individuals contributed to the project. The first phase combined a survey of 210 caregivers and focus groups with 22 participants to identify priority support dimensions. Thematic analysis highlighted four main areas: informational guidance, logistical assistance, emotional and communication strategies, and peer social connection. Based on these insights, 147 additional participants provided feedback that refined platform features and content. Finally, platform evaluation included standardized usability measures including the Single Ease Question (SEQ) for task difficulty, the System Usability Scale (SUS) for overall usability perception, the Perceived Usefulness Scale (PUS) completed by 40 caregivers, and scenario-based testing with 19 users who discussed experiences and improvement opportunities. Results: Quantitative findings showed high ratings in accessibility (average score: 4.5/5), usability (scored 74.3/100), and perceived usefulness was rated lower (average score: 3.4/5). Qualitative feedback supported these results, emphasizing the platform's practical value in everyday caregiving. However, participants with lower digital literacy reported persistent challenges, indicating the need for simplified navigation and adaptive interface features. Discussion:
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.