This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

63/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Objectives Digital health interventions enable services to support people living with dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) remotely. This literature review gathers evidence on the effectiveness of digital health interventions on physical, cognitive, behavioural and psychological outcomes, and Activities of Daily Living in people living with dementia and MCI. Methods/design Searches, using nine databases, were run in November 2021. Two authors carried out study selection/appraisal using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Study characteristics were extracted through the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions data extraction form. Data on digital health interventions were extracted through the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Intervention effectiveness was determined through effect sizes. Meta-analyses were performed to pool data on intervention effectiveness. Results Twenty studies were included in the review, with a diverse range of interventions, modes of delivery, activities, duration, length, frequency, and intensity. Compared to controls, the interventions produced a moderate effect on cognitive abilities (SMD = 0.36; 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.76; I 2 = 61%), and a negative moderate effect on basic ADLs (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI = -0.86 to 0.05; I 2 = 69%). Stepping exergames generated the largest effect sizes on physical and cognitive abilities. Supervised training produced larger effect sizes than unsupervised interventions. Conclusion Supervised intervention delivery is linked to greatest benefits. A mix of remote and face-to-face delivery could maximise benefits and optimise costs. Accessibility, acceptability and sustainability of digital interventions for end-users must be pre-requisites for the development of future successful services.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: High

This is a pooled review. This meta-analysis of digital health interventions found a moderate effect on cognitive abilities and a negative moderate effect on basic activities of daily living, with confidence intervals crossing zero. It addresses remote support interventions and does not report a cure or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Di Lorito, C., Bosco, A., Rai, H., Craven, M., McNally, D., Todd, C., et al. (2022). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on digital health interventions for people living with dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.5730

Vancouver

Di Lorito C, Bosco A, Rai H, Craven M, McNally D, Todd C, et al. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on digital health interventions for people living with dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2022. doi:10.1002/gps.5730. PMID: 35588315.

BibTeX

@article{dilorito2022-35588315,
  author  = {Di Lorito, C. and Bosco, A. and Rai, H. and Craven, M. and McNally, D. and Todd, C. and Booth, V. and Cowley, A. and others},
  title   = {{A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on digital health interventions for people living with dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment}},
  journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1002/gps.5730},
  pmid    = {35588315},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.5730}
}

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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Twenty studies were included in the review, with a diverse range of interventions, modes of delivery, activities, duration, length, frequency, and intensity.
Compared to controls, the interventions produced a moderate effect on cognitive abilities (SMD = 0.36; 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.76; I 2 = 61%), and a negative moderate effect on basic ADLs (SMD = -0.40; 95% CI = -0.86 to 0.05; I 2 = 69%).

Why it matters

This meta-analysis of digital health interventions found a moderate effect on cognitive abilities and a negative moderate effect on basic activities of daily living, with confidence intervals crossing zero. It addresses remote support interventions and does not report a cure or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

Study designmeta-analysis
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 63/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: journal h-index 190 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	12 / 12	A meta-analysis pooling many studies
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2022 — 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	4 / 7	Cited 62 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	10.3 citations a year over 6 year(s) since 2022
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 2.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 3 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 52 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Rowan Harwood: h-index 50 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	University of Manchester: institution h-index 1,304 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35588315)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	63 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Digital health tools from nearby years

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →