Commercially Available Mobile Apps for Caregivers of People With Alzheimer Disease or Other Related Dementias: Systematic Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 15 million Americans provide unpaid care for persons with Alzheimer disease or other related dementias (ADRD). While there is good evidence to suggest that caregivers benefit from psychosocial interventions, these have primarily been delivered via face-to-face individual or group format. Alternatively, offering electronic health (eHealth) interventions may assist caregivers in providing quality care while remaining in good health. Research to date has generated little knowledge about what app features support ADRD caregivers' behavioral changes and how developers might optimize features over the long term. OBJECTIVE: There is an evident knowledge gap in the current landscape of commercially available apps, their integration of behavioral techniques, content focus, and compliance with usability recommendations. This paper systematically reviews and inventories the apps caregivers might typically be exposed to and determines the support integrated into the apps and their functionality for older adults. METHODS: The search strategy was designed to mimic typical Web-based health information-seeking behavior for adults. Apps were included based on their explicit focus on ADRD caregiver knowledge and skill improvement. Two coders with expertise in behavioral interventions and eHealth pilot-tested the data extraction. One coder retained app characteristics and design features. Techniques used to promote change were determined, and 2 questions from the Mobile App Rating Scale were used to assess the app credibility and evidence base. Content topics were evaluated using a thematic framing technique, and each app was assessed using a usability heuristic checklist. RESULTS: The search results generated 18 unique apps that met the inclusion criteria. Some apps were unavailable, and only 8 unique apps were reviewed. Of the 8, 7 (88%) apps did not state which scientific orientation was followed to develop their content. None of the apps made clinical claims of improving caregivers' and care recipients' overall health. All apps relied on textual information to disseminate their contents. None of the apps was trialed and evidence based. Apps included on average 7 out of 10 behavioral change techniques, 5 out of 10 C.A.R.E. (Caregivers, Aspirations, Realities, and Expectations) features, and 10 out of 18 features on the usability heuristics checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that caregivers are likely to discover apps that are not actually accessible and have low or no evidence base. Apps were found to be largely static, text-based informational resources, and few supported behaviors needed to maintain caregivers' health. While apps may be providing a high volume of information, caregivers must still navigate what resources they need with limited guidance. Finally, the commercial marketplace is addressing some of the major usability elements, but many design elements are not addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".