MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312376157 · doi:10.2196/40330

Digital Health Technology to Support Health Care Professionals and Family Caregivers Caring for Patients With Cognitive Impairment: Scoping Review

2022· article· en· W4312376157 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mohamed-Amine Choukou, Funminiyi Olatoye, Reg Urbanowski, Maurizio Caon, Caroline Monnin

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersVictoria General Hospital FoundationResearch Manitoba
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOPsychological interventionFamily caregiversDementiaMEDLINEHealth carePsychologyMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Digital health technology is a promising way of supporting health care providers and family caregivers as they care for patients with cognitive impairment. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to portray the use of digital health technology to assist health care providers and family caregivers in caring for patients with cognitive impairment who live in the community or in a facility. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed scientific articles available in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL with Full Text, as well as gray literature available in preprint servers, theses depositories, and various national and international dementia organizations' websites. The search yielded 975 articles, of which we included 7 (0.7%) in the review. RESULTS: Of the 7 interventions included in the retrieved manuscripts, 2 (29%) were digital calendar reminder systems to support activities of daily living and medication management; 2 (29%) were apps on tablet devices to simulate the presence of family before therapy interventions; 1 (14%) was a social robot used in therapeutic sessions to include elements of musicotherapy, reminiscence, cognitive games, and relaxation; 1 (14%) was a commercially available computer system that provides access to various recreational leisure activities; and 1 (14%) was a web-based self-management support system that helps family caregivers to deal with behavior changes in a relative with dementia. Of the 7 articles, only 1 (14%) reported on the use of a behavior change theory, namely a comprehensive process model of engagement coupled with cognitive stimulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on the topic is scarce, recent, and heterogeneous. There is a clear need for a theoretical framework to conceptualize and govern the use of behavior change models that incorporate technology for patients with cognitive impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207