Existing Digital Health Technology Index Summary Report for Older Adults Living with Neurocognitive Disorders (Mild and Major) and Their Informal Caregivers: An Environmental Scan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital health has added numerous promising solutions to enhance the health and wellness of people with neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) and their informal caregivers. (1) Background: It is important to obtain a comprehensive view of currently available technologies, their outcomes, and conditions of success to inform recommendations regarding digital health solutions for people with NCDs and their caregivers. This environmental scan was performed to identify the features of existing digital health solutions relevant to the targeted population. This work reviews currently available digital health solutions and their related characteristics to develop a decision support tool for older adults living with mild or major neurocognitive disorders and their informal caregivers. This knowledge will aid the development of a decision support tool to assist older adults and their informal caregivers in their search for adequate digital health solutions according to their needs and preferences based on trustable information. (2) Methods: We conducted an environmental scan to identify digital health solutions from a systematic review and targeted searches in the grey literature covering the regions of Canada and Europe. Technological tools were scanned based on a preformatted extraction grid. We assessed their relevance based on selected attributes and summarized the findings. (3) Results: We identified 100 available digital health solutions. The majority (56%) were not specific to NCDs. Only 28% provided scientific evidence of their effectiveness. Remote patient care, movement tracking, and cognitive exercises were the most common purposes of digital health solutions. Most solutions were presented as decision aid tools, pill dispensers, apps, web, or a combination of these platforms. (4) Conclusions: This environmental scan allowed for identifying current digital health solutions for older adults with mild or major neurocognitive disorders and their informal caregivers. Findings from the environmental scan highlight the need for additional approaches to strengthen digital health interventions for the well-being of older adults with mild and major NCDs and their informal and formal healthcare providers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".