Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A preliminary evaluation of a client-centred prompting tool for supporting everyday activities in individuals with mild to moderate levels of cognitive impairment due to dementia
Harris N, Boyd H, Evans N, Cheston R, Noonan K, Ingram T, Jarvis A, Ridgers J.. Dementia (London, England), 2020-04-04
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objectives Technology-based prompting has the potential to support people with dementia to complete multistep tasks in the home. However, these devices can be complex to use. This paper reports a feasibility trial of a personalised touchscreen digital prompter designed for home use. Methodology: A tablet-based prompter suitable for people living with dementia was developed, along with a detailed guidance manual. Carers loaded instructions for completing the task onto the prompter, and the person with dementia then used the tablet independently to complete a task. Eleven couples used the prompter 'out-of-the-box' with no support other than a guidance manual. Results The majority of participants with dementia could follow the steps on the prompter, and carers were able to breakdown and load tasks onto the prompter. Eight couples used the prompter successfully to complete goals that they had identified in advance. These included preparing simple snacks and using a TV remote control. Successfully achieving goals was associated with more frequent use of the prompting screen on more days, but not higher levels of editing or previewing of tasks. Conclusion The study provides the preliminary evidence that family caregivers can use a touchscreen tablet, software and manual package to identify specific tasks and break these down into steps and that people living with dementia can then follow the prompts to complete the tasks. This potentially represents an important advance in dementia care. Further testing is required to establish efficacy and to identify any factors that impact on outcomes.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Harris, N., Boyd, H., Evans, N., Cheston, R., Noonan, K., Ingram, T., et al. (2021). A preliminary evaluation of a client-centred prompting tool for supporting everyday activities in individuals with mild to moderate levels of cognitive impairment due to dementia. Dementia (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301220911322
Vancouver
Harris N, Boyd H, Evans N, Cheston R, Noonan K, Ingram T, et al. A preliminary evaluation of a client-centred prompting tool for supporting everyday activities in individuals with mild to moderate levels of cognitive impairment due to dementia. Dementia (London, England). 2021. doi:10.1177/1471301220911322. PMID: 32249596.
BibTeX
@article{harris2021-32249596,
author = {Harris, N. and Boyd, H. and Evans, N. and Cheston, R. and Noonan, K. and Ingram, T. and Jarvis, A. and Ridgers, J.},
title = {{A preliminary evaluation of a client-centred prompting tool for supporting everyday activities in individuals with mild to moderate levels of cognitive impairment due to dementia}},
journal = {Dementia (London, England)},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1177/1471301220911322},
pmid = {32249596},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301220911322}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The majority of participants with dementia could follow the steps on the prompter, and carers were able to breakdown and load tasks onto the prompter.
- Successfully achieving goals was associated with more frequent use of the prompting screen on more days, but not higher levels of editing or previewing of tasks.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia (London, England)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32249596) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “mild”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “mild”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.