mHealth Apps for Dementia, Alzheimer Disease, and Other Neurocognitive Disorders: Systematic Search and Environmental Scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle behaviors including exercise, sleep, diet, stress, mental stimulation, and social interaction significantly impact the likelihood of developing dementia. Mobile health (mHealth) apps have been valuable tools in addressing these lifestyle behaviors for general health and well-being, and there is growing recognition of their potential use for brain health and dementia prevention. Effective apps must be evidence-based and safeguard user data, addressing gaps in the current state of dementia-related mHealth apps. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the scope of available apps for dementia prevention and risk factors, highlighting gaps and suggesting a path forward for future development. METHODS: A systematic search of mobile app stores, peer-reviewed literature, dementia and Alzheimer association websites, and browser searches was conducted from October 19, 2022, to November 2, 2022. A total of 1044 mHealth apps were retrieved. After screening, 152 apps met the inclusion criteria and were coded by paired, independent reviewers using an extraction framework. The framework was adapted from the Silberg scale, other scoping reviews of mHealth apps for similar populations, and background research on modifiable dementia risk factors. Coded elements included evidence-based and expert credibility, app features, lifestyle elements of focus, and privacy and security. RESULTS: Of the 152 apps that met the final selection criteria, 88 (57.9%) addressed modifiable lifestyle behaviors associated with reducing dementia risk. However, many of these apps (59/152, 38.8%) only addressed one lifestyle behavior, with mental stimulation being the most frequently addressed. More than half (84/152, 55.2%) scored 2 points out of 9 on the Silberg scale, with a mean score of 2.4 (SD 1.0) points. Most of the 152 apps did not disclose essential information: 120 (78.9%) did not disclose expert consultation, 125 (82.2%) did not disclose evidence-based information, 146 (96.1%) did not disclose author credentials, and 134 (88.2%) did not disclose their information sources. In addition, 105 (69.2%) apps did not disclose adherence to data privacy and security practices. CONCLUSIONS: There is an opportunity for mHealth apps to support individuals in engaging in behaviors linked to reducing dementia risk. While there is a market for these products, there is a lack of dementia-related apps focused on multiple lifestyle behaviors. Gaps in the rigor of app development regarding evidence base, credibility, and adherence to data privacy and security standards must be addressed. Following established and validated guidelines will be necessary for dementia-related apps to be effective and advance successfully.
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 | 0.020 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.043 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".