Background
The main objective of this research was to evaluate the acceptance of technology based on a wearable lifelogging camera in a sample of older adults diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
Methods
A mixed-method design was used, consisting of a self-report questionnaire, numerous images taken by users, and a series of focus group discussions. The patients were involved in an individualized training programme.
Results
Nine MCI patients and their caregiver relatives were included. They showed good acceptance of the camera and downloaded an appropriate number of images on a daily basis. Perceived severity and ease of use were the main factors associated with the intention to use the device.
Conclusions
Older adults with MCI can become competent users of lifelogging wearable cameras with a good level of acceptance. Privacy concerns are outweighed by the potential benefits for memory. Limitations, strengths and implications for future research are discussed.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-019-1132-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The abbreviated Barcelona Test (a-BT) is an instrument widely used in Spain and Latin American countries for general neuropsychological assessment. The purpose of the present study was to provide new norms for the a-BT as part of the Neuronorma project. The sample consisted of 346 healthy controls. Overlapping cell procedure and midpoint techniques were applied to develop the normative data. Age, education, and sex influences were studied. Results indicated that although age and education affected the score on this test, sex did not. Raw scores were transformed to age-adjusted scaled scores (SS(A)) based on percentile ranks. These SS(A) were also converted into age-education scaled scores using a linear regression model. Norms were presented on age-education scaled scores. Also, the a-BT cognitive profile was presented and should prove to be clinically useful for interpretation. These co-normed data will allow clinicians to compare scores from a-BT with all the tests included in the Neuronorma project.
Background:Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in western industrialized countries and account for disability and loss of productivity. Type D personality and depression are established psychosocial factors with a negative impact on prognosis following acute events.Methods:We evaluated 65 patients admitted to a coronary unit with ACS regarding type D personality (DS-14), depression (BDI-II, HADS), anxiety (HADS), clinical depression (clinical interview following DSM-IV-TR criteria) and quality of life (SF-36). SPSS 12.0 was used for statistical analysis and significance considered for p< 0.05.Results:We found that 38.5% of patients had type D personality and divided the sample into two groups. No significant differences were found regarding social and demographic factors but differences were found regarding diagnosis on admission: type D patients had more AMI with ST elevation (p< 0.05). Type D patients had significantly higher scores in depression and anxiety scales of the HADS (p< 0.01) and worse quality of life in most SF-36 subscales (p< 0.01). There was a negative and significant correlation between the HADS and all the SF-36 subscales, strongest in the mental health subscale (p< 0.01).Conclusions:Type D patients have higher indices of anxiety and depression and worse quality of life when compared with other patients, and constitute a high risk group of worse prognosis. Our results also suggest differences between groups regarding the type of acute event but these results require further confirmation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.