mHealth Apps for Dementia Caregivers: Systematic Examination of Mobile Apps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Informal caregivers of persons living with dementia are increasingly using mobile health (mHealth) apps to obtain care information. mHealth apps are seen as promising tools to better support caregivers' complex and evolving information needs. Yet, little is known about the types and quality of dementia care information that these apps provide. Is this information for caregivers individually tailored; if so, how? Objective: We aim to address the aforementioned gaps in the literature by systematically examining the types and quality of care-related information provided in publicly available apps for caregivers of persons living with dementia as well as app features used to tailor information to caregivers' information wants and situations. Methods: In September 2023, we used a multistage process to select mobile apps for caregivers of persons living with dementia. The final sample included 35 apps. We assessed (1) types of dementia care information provided in the apps, using our 3-item Alzheimer disease and related dementias daily care strategy framework, which encompasses educational information, tangible actions, and referral information; (2) quality of apps' care information, using the 11 indicators recommended by the National Library of Medicine; and (3) types of tailoring to provide personalization, feedback, and content matching, which are common tailoring strategies described in the literature. Results: Educational information was the most prevalent type of information provided (29/35 apps, 83%), followed by information about tangible actions (18/35, 51%) and referrals (14/35, 40%). All apps presented their objectives clearly and avoided unrealistic or emotional claims. However, few provided information to explain whether the app's content was generated or reviewed by experts (7/35, 20%) or how its content was selected (4/35, 11%). Further, 6 of the 35 (17%) apps implemented 1 type of tailoring; of them, 4 (11%) used content matching and the other 2 (6%) used personalization. No app used 2 types of tailoring; only 2 (6%) used all 3 types (the third is feedback). Conclusions: Existing dementia care apps do not provide sufficient high-quality, tailored information for informal caregivers. Caregivers should exercise caution when they use dementia care apps for informational support. Future research should focus on designing dementia care apps that incorporate quality-assured, transparency-enhanced, evidence-based artificial intelligence-enabled mHealth solutions for caregivers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".