Assistive Technology to Support Dementia Management: Protocol for a Scoping Review of Reviews (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND In Canada, more than 60% of persons living with dementia reside in their own homes, and over 25% rely heavily on their care partners (ie, family members or friends) for assistance with daily activities such as personal hygiene, eating, and walking. Assistive technology (AT) is a key dementia management strategy, helping to maintain health and social support in home and community settings. AT comprises assistive products and services required for safe and effective use. Persons living with dementia and their care partners often require multiple types of AT to maintain their needs, dignity, and autonomy. AT for dementia management is rapidly developing with abundant scientific literature, which can present a challenge to efficiently navigate and extract insights for policy and personal decision-making. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aims to synthesize review-level evidence from published scientific literature on AT to support dementia management for persons living with dementia and their care partners in their homes and communities. Research gaps in knowledge and areas for further investigation into the use and access of AT will be identified. This review will provide an overview of AT types and characteristics and chart the outcomes and conclusions in review-level evidence. METHODS This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute’s framework for conducting scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. In total, 6 electronic databases will be searched. Articles will be screened according to the “Population-Concept-Context (PCC)” framework for eligible studies. Population includes persons living with dementia, their care partners, and health care professionals (eg, therapists or others who recommend AT). Concept includes AT and self-help devices of many types. Context includes homes and communities. A data charting template will guide data extraction, charting, and summarization. A descriptive numerical summary and an overview of the findings will be presented. Data, such as (1) article information (eg, author and year), (2) article characteristics (eg, review type), (3) AT types and characteristics, (4) setting and population characteristics, and (5) key review outcomes and conclusions, will be extracted. RESULTS A total of 10,978 unique citations were identified across the 6 electronic databases. This review is in the full-text screening stage, which is expected to be completed by October 2024. CONCLUSIONS This review will provide a comprehensive understanding and documentation of the published scientific literature on AT to support dementia management. Findings from this review are expected to provide evidence-based insights on the complexities of AT types, uses, availability, and access. The author group’s diverse national and international perspectives may contribute to knowledge exchange and influence standards to improve the daily function, safety, and well-being of persons living with dementia. CLINICALTRIAL Open Science Framework DKSM9; https://osf.io/dksm9 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/57036
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 | 0.077 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 0.025 |
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".