↓ Skip to main content

Assistive technology for memory support in dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assistive technology for memory support in dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009627.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henriëtte G Van der Roest, Jennifer Wenborn, Channah Pastink, Rose-Marie Dröes, Martin Orrell

Abstract

The sustained interest in electronic assistive technology in dementia care has been fuelled by the urgent need to develop useful approaches to help support people with dementia at home. Also the low costs and wide availability of electronic devices make it more feasible to use electronic devices for the benefit of disabled persons. Information Communication Technology (ICT) devices designed to support people with dementia are usually referred to as Assistive Technology (AT) or Electronic Assistive Technology (EAT). By using AT in this review we refer to electronic assistive devices. A range of AT devices has been developed to support people with dementia and their carers to manage their daily activities and to enhance safety, for example electronic pill boxes, picture phones, or mobile tracking devices. Many are commercially available. However, the usefulness and user-friendliness of these devices are often poorly evaluated. Although reviews of (electronic) memory aids do exist, a systematic review of studies focusing on the efficacy of AT for memory support in people with dementia is lacking. Such a review would guide people with dementia and their informal and professional carers in selecting appropriate AT devices. Primary objectiveTo assess the efficacy of AT for memory support in people with dementia in terms of daily performance of personal and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL), level of dependency, and admission to long-term care. Secondary objectiveTo assess the impact of AT on: users (autonomy, usefulness and user-friendliness, adoption of AT); cognitive function and neuropsychiatric symptoms; need for informal and formal care; perceived quality of life; informal carer burden, self-esteem and feelings of competence; formal carer work satisfaction, workload and feelings of competence; and adverse events. We searched ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), on 10 November 2016. ALOIS is maintained by the Information Specialists of the CDCIG and contains studies in the areas of dementia prevention, dementia treatment and cognitive enhancement in healthy people. We also searched the following list of databases, adapting the search strategy as necessary: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Databases, up to May 2016; The Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies; DBLP Computer Science Bibliography; HCI Bibliography: Human-Computer Interaction Resources; and AgeInfo, all to June 2016; PiCarta; Inspec; Springer Link Lecture Notes; Social Care Online; and IEEE Computer Society Digital Library, all to October 2016; J-STAGE: Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator, Electronic; and Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library (NCSTRL), both to November 2016; Computing Research Repository (CoRR) up to December 2016; and OT seeker; and ADEAR, both to February 2017. In addition, we searched Google Scholar and OpenSIGLE for grey literature. We intended to review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clustered randomised trials with blinded assessment of outcomes that evaluated an electronic assistive device used with the single aim of supporting memory function in people diagnosed with dementia. The control interventions could either be 'care (or treatment) as usual' or non-technological psychosocial interventions (including interventions that use non-electronic assistive devices) also specifically aimed at supporting memory. Outcome measures included activities of daily living, level of dependency, clinical and care-related outcomes (for example admission to long-term care), perceived quality of life and well-being, and adverse events resulting from the use of AT; as well as the effects of AT on carers. Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts identified by the search. We identified no studies which met the inclusion criteria. This review highlights the current lack of high-quality evidence to determine whether AT is effective in supporting people with dementia to manage their memory problems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 233 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 20%
Unspecified 45 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 14%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Researcher 29 12%
Other 51 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 56 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 17%
Psychology 29 12%
Social Sciences 24 10%
Other 40 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#550,943
of 13,396,110 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,747
of 10,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,036
of 267,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#63
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,396,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.