Patient and Public Involvement in Technology-Related Dementia Research: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technology-related research on people with dementia and their carers often aims to enable people to remain living at home for longer and prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. To develop person-centered, effective, and ethical research, patient and public involvement (PPI) is necessary, although it may be perceived as more difficult with this cohort. With recent and rapid expansions in health and care-related technology, this review explored how and with what impact collaborations between researchers and stakeholders such as people with dementia and their carers have taken place. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to describe approaches to PPI used to date in technology-related dementia research, along with the barriers and facilitators and impact of PPI in this area. METHODS: A scoping review of literature related to dementia, technology, and PPI was conducted using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL. Papers were screened for inclusion by 2 authors. Data were then extracted using a predesigned data extraction table by the same 2 authors. A third author supported the resolution of any conflicts at each stage. Barriers to and facilitators of undertaking PPI were then examined and themed. RESULTS: The search yielded 1694 papers, with 31 (1.83%) being analyzed after screening. Most (21/31, 68%) did not make clear distinctions between activities undertaken as PPI and those undertaken by research participants, and as such, their involvement did not fit easily into the National Institute for Health and Care Research definition of PPI. Most of this mixed involvement focused on reviewing or evaluating technology prototypes. A range of approaches were described, most typically using focus groups or co-design workshops. In total, 29% (9/31) described involvement at multiple stages throughout the research cycle, sometimes with evidence of sharing decision-making power. Some (23/31, 74%) commented on barriers to or facilitators of effective PPI. The challenges identified often regarded issues of working with people with significant cognitive impairments and pressures on time and resources. Where reported, the impact of PPI was largely reported as positive, including the experiences for patient and public partners, the impact on research quality, and the learning experience it provided for researchers. Only 4 (13%) papers used formal methods for evaluating impact. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers often involve people with dementia and other stakeholders in technology research. At present, involvement is often limited in scope despite aspirations for high levels of involvement and partnership working. Involving people with dementia, their carers, and other stakeholders can have a positive impact on research, patient and public partners, and researchers. Wider reporting of methods and facilitative strategies along with more formalized methods for recording and reporting on meaningful impact would be helpful so that all those involved-researchers, patients, and other stakeholders-can learn how we can best conduct research together.
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 | 0.051 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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".