The Implementation Success of Technology-Based Counseling in Dementia Care: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementing technology-based counseling as a complex intervention in dementia care poses challenges such as adaptation to stakeholders' needs and limited resources. While studies have examined the effectiveness of technology-based counseling, its successful implementation remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review the knowledge about the implementation success of technology-based counseling interventions for people with dementia and their informal caregivers. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and systematically searched CINAHL, the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection databases (April 2021) in combination with citation searching and web searching (November 2021). Studies reporting on technology-based counseling interventions for people with dementia or their informal caregivers were included, irrespective of the design. We used the conceptual framework for implementation outcomes to operationalize implementation success and applied the outcomes acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability as categories to inform data extraction. We identified dimensions within the categories and synthesized results narratively and graphically. RESULTS: We included 52 publications reporting on 27 technology-based counseling interventions. The studies were conducted in 9 countries and published between 1993 and 2021. As the design of the included studies varied, the number of participants and the type of data reported varied as well. The intervention programs were heterogeneous and ranged from single counseling interventions (such as helpline services) to counseling as part of a multicomponent program. Telephone, email, videoconferencing, social media (respectively chats), and web-based platforms were used for delivering counseling. We found data on appropriateness for all interventions and data on acceptability for most interventions, describing aspects such as consumer-perceived usefulness and helpfulness of services, as well as satisfaction. Information on the other categories of adoption, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability was fragmented. CONCLUSIONS: The scope and depth of information on conceptual categories of the implementation success of technology-based counseling for people with dementia and informal caregivers varied. The data only partially covered the concept of implementation success, which highlights the need for a systematic evaluation accompanying the implementation. The application of theoretical approaches for implementation and adherence to the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions are required to promote the implementation of complex interventions and to comprehensively assess implementation success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021245473; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=245473.
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 | 0.041 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".