Researched Apps Used in Dementia Care for People Living With Dementia and Their Informal Caregivers: Systematic Review on App Features, Security, and Usability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".