Researched Apps Used in Dementia Care for People Living With Dementia and Their Informal Caregivers: Systematic Review on App Features, Security, and Usability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that mobile apps have the potential to serve as nonpharmacological interventions for dementia care, improving the quality of life of people living with dementia and their informal caregivers. However, little is known about the needs for and privacy aspects of these mobile apps in dementia care. OBJECTIVE: This review seeks to understand the landscape of existing mobile apps in dementia care for people living with dementia and their caregivers with respect to app features, usability testing, privacy, and security. METHODS: ACM Digital Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Compendex, Embase, Inspec, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched. Studies were included if they included people with dementia living in the community, their informal caregivers, or both; focused on apps in dementia care using smartphones or tablet computers; and covered usability evaluation of the app. Records were independently screened, and 2 reviewers extracted the data. The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine critical appraisal tool and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Thematic synthesis was used, and the findings were summarized and tabulated based on each research aim. RESULTS: Overall, 44 studies were included in this review, with 39 (89%) published after 2015. In total, 50 apps were included in the study, with more apps developed for people living with dementia as end users compared with caregivers. Most studies (27/44, 61%) used tablet computers. The most common app feature was cognitive stimulation. This review presented 9 app usability themes: user interface, physical considerations, screen size, interaction challenges, meeting user needs, lack of self-awareness of app needs, stigma, technological inexperience, and technical support. In total, 5 methods (questionnaires, interviews, observations, logging, and focus groups) were used to evaluate usability. There was little focus on the privacy and security aspects, including data transfer and protection, of mobile apps for people living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The limitations of this review include 1 reviewer conducting the full-text screening, its restriction to studies published in English, and the exclusion of apps that lacked empirical usability testing. As a result, there may be an incomplete representation of the available apps in the field of dementia care. However, this review highlights significant concerns related to the usability, privacy, and security of existing mobile apps for people living with dementia and their caregivers. The findings of this review provide a valuable framework to guide app developers and researchers in the areas of privacy policy development, app development strategies, and the importance of conducting thorough usability testing for their apps. By considering these factors, future work in this field can be advanced to enhance the quality and effectiveness of dementia care apps. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020216141; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=216141. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1159/000514838.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,034 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».