Effectiveness of using assistive technology for time orientation and memory, in older adults with or without dementia

Nishiura, Yuko; Nihei, Misato; Nakamura‐Thomas, Hiromi; Inoue, Takenobu

doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1650299

Cited by 29 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 47 full texts that were read, only nine studies met all of our inclusion criteria [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Sixteen records were excluded because they were determined not to be reporting results from controlled interventional studies [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants engaged in seven face-to-face sessions (four sessions of 4-6 h each for patients and family members together, and three peer support sessions of 2 h each separately for patients and family members). -Electric calendar [32]: The primary aims of the intervention were to improve the user's cognitive function and reduce behavioral disturbances by means of a software application for an Android tablet with page-a-day calendar, clock, and alarm function for scheduled "events". The intention was that the person with dementia or MCI would regularly view the calendar and interact with alarms.…”

Section: Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies were included in the narrative synthesis [29][30][31][33][34][35][36]. The two studies judged to be of poor quality and of overall low weight of evidence pertained to software applications, and evaluated outcomes relevant to self-management but not social participation [28,32]. Neither reported quantitative, statistically significant effects of the interventions evaluated compared to the control group.…”

Section: Quality and Weight-of-evidence Assessment Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the studies reporting self-management outcomes, all reported on IADL but none reported on other aspects of self-management, such as self-efficacy or experienced autonomy [28,29,[31][32][33][34][35][36]. Three studies reported no statistically significant effects of the intervention compared to the control group [28,31,34], four reported positive effects of the intervention compared to the control group [29,33,35,36], and none reported significant negative effects of intervention compared to control.…”

Section: Moss (Social Participation)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Can Use of Digital Technologies by People with Dementia Improve Self-Management and Social Participation? A Systematic Review of Effect Studies

Neal

Berg

Planting

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing interest in the use of technology to support social health in dementia. The primary objective of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence of effectiveness of digital technologies used by people with dementia to improve self-management and social participation. Records published from 1 January 2007 to 9 April 2020 were identified from Pubmed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Controlled interventional studies evaluating interventions based on any digital technology were included if: primary users of the technology had dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI); and the study reported outcomes relevant to self-management or social participation. Studies were clustered by population, intervention, and outcomes, and narrative synthesis was undertaken. Of 1394 records identified, nine met the inclusion criteria: two were deemed to be of poor methodological quality, six of fair quality, and one of good quality. Three clusters of technologies were identified: virtual reality, wearables, and software applications. We identified weak evidence that digital technologies may provide less benefit to people with dementia than people with MCI. Future research should address the methodological limitations and narrow scope of existing work. In the absence of strong evidence, clinicians and caregivers must use their judgement to appraise available technologies on a case-by-case basis.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality and Weight-of-evidence Assessment Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moss (Social Participation)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can Use of Digital Technologies by People with Dementia Improve Self-Management and Social Participation? A Systematic Review of Effect Studies

Neal

Berg

Planting

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They include "any product or technology-based service that enables people of all ages with activity limitations in their daily life, education, work or leisure" (Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe [WorldCat Identities], 2018). Regarding dementia, ATs can increase motor autonomy and reduce the risks associated with wandering thanks to their GPS technology (Liu et al, 2017); they can also sustain people's cognitive abilitiesthose required to accomplish necessary daily activities (Nishiura et al, 2019). Again, ATs play a role in supporting the policies surrounding aging in place.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assistive Technologies in Dementia Care: An Updated Analysis of the Literature

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Technology can assist and support both people with dementia (PWD) and caregivers. Recently, technology has begun to embed remote components. Timely with respect to the pandemic, the present work reviews the most recent literature on technology in dementia contexts together with the newest studies about technological support published until October 2020. The final aim is to provide a synthesis of the timeliest evidence upon which clinical and non-clinical decision-makers can rely to make choices about technology in the case of further pandemic waves.Methods: A review of reviews was performed alongside a review of the studies run during the first pandemic wave. PsycInfo, CINAHL, and PubMed-online were the databases inspected for relevant papers published from January 2010.Results: The search identified 420 articles, 30 of which were reviews and nine of which were new studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were first sorted according to the target population, then summarized thematically in a narrative synthesis. The studies targeting technologies for PWD were categorized as follows: monitoring and security purposes, sustaining daily life, and therapeutic interventions. Each category showed potential benefits. Differently, the interventions for caregivers were classified as informative, psycho-education programs, psychosocial-supportive, therapeutic, and cognitive/physical training. Benefits to mental health, skills learning, and social aspects emerged.Conclusions: The evidence shows that technology is well-accepted and can support PWD and caregivers to bypass physical and environmental problems both during regular times and during future pandemic waves. Nevertheless, the lack of a common methodological background is revealed by this analysis. Further and more standardized research is necessary to improve the implementation of technologies in everyday life while respecting the necessary personalization.

show abstract