2017
DOI: 10.4017/gt.2017.16.1.001.00
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The application of technologies in dementia diagnosis and intervention: A literature review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…no reviews provided a list of excluded studies (item 5); all the reviews but one provided tables displaying the characteristics of the analyzed studies (item 6); 17 out of 23 reviews performed the study quality assessment (item 7); all the reviews but one based their conclusion on study quality levels (item 8); only four reviews performed a meta-analysis (item 9); 10 reviews reported publication bias (item 10), and 21 reviews discussed the conflicts of interest (item 11). The reviews not analyzed via AMSTAR scores were subjected to the SANRA process (Brando et al, 2017;Dove and Astell, 2017;Klimova and Maresova, 2017;Neubauer et al, 2018;Lorenz et al, 2019;Rathnayake et al, 2019;Yousaf et al, 2019). Overall, the studies achieved a score of 11.1, with a standard deviation of 0.8.…”
Section: Quality Assessment Of the Included Reviewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…no reviews provided a list of excluded studies (item 5); all the reviews but one provided tables displaying the characteristics of the analyzed studies (item 6); 17 out of 23 reviews performed the study quality assessment (item 7); all the reviews but one based their conclusion on study quality levels (item 8); only four reviews performed a meta-analysis (item 9); 10 reviews reported publication bias (item 10), and 21 reviews discussed the conflicts of interest (item 11). The reviews not analyzed via AMSTAR scores were subjected to the SANRA process (Brando et al, 2017;Dove and Astell, 2017;Klimova and Maresova, 2017;Neubauer et al, 2018;Lorenz et al, 2019;Rathnayake et al, 2019;Yousaf et al, 2019). Overall, the studies achieved a score of 11.1, with a standard deviation of 0.8.…”
Section: Quality Assessment Of the Included Reviewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neubauer et al (2018) analyzed monitoring technologies for PWD and reported that GPS devices are usually implemented in wearable items, such as belts or wristwatches. CANDEROID, for example, is a system based on a wrist sensor combined with a smartphone App allowing the caregiver to monitor and track the position of the PWD in real-time (Brando et al, 2017). Benefits to the perceived security and quality of life emerge from using these technologies by PWD and informal caregivers (Lorenz et al, 2019).…”
Section: Monitoring and Securitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Undoubtedly, the primary benefit of using technology as part of cognitive therapies is that interventions are more accessible, flexible [ 4 ], and cost-effective [ 5 ]. Furthermore, using portable devices such as tablets and computers enables bringing interventions to rural areas or users’ homes [ 6 ]. Moreover, computer-based interventions support clinical practice and considerably reduce therapists’ burden [ 7 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%