Use of touch screen tablets to support social connections and reduce responsive behaviours among people with dementia in care settings: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The disabilities associated with dementia make the adjustment to staying in a care setting stressful. Separation from family can exacerbate the effects of stress. The use of touch screen tablets such as an iPad may offer potential to support the person with dementia staying in a care setting. Although electronic devices are used among people with dementia for a variety of purposes, a comprehensive review of studies focusing on their impact in care settings for social connection and patient/resident behaviour is lacking. This scoping review will focus on the use of touch screen tablets to support social connections and reducing responsive behaviours of people with dementia while in a care setting, such as a hospital ward. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. The review team consists of two patient partners and three family partners, a nurse researcher, a research assistant and an academic professor. All authors including patient and family partners were involved in preparing this scoping review protocol. In the scoping review, we will search the following databases: MEDLINE, AgeLine, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO and IEEE. Google and Google Scholar will be used to search for additional literature. A hand search will be conducted using the reference lists of included studies to identify additional relevant articles. Included studies must report on the impact of using a touch screen technology intervention that involves older adults with dementia in care settings, published in English since 2009. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review study does not require ethics approval. By examining the current state of using touch screen tablets to support older people with dementia in care settings, this scoping review can offer useful insight into users' needs (eg, patients' and care providers' needs) and inform future research and practice. We will share the scoping review results through conference presentations and an open access publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
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 | 0.076 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.014 |
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".