Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background Mobile and wearable devices are increasingly being used to support our everyday lives and track our behavior. Since daily support and behavior tracking are two core components of cognitive rehabilitation, such personal devices could be employed in rehabilitation approaches aimed at improving independence and engagement among people with dementia. Objective The aim of this work was to investigate the feasibility of using smartphones and smartwatches to augment rehabilitation by providing adaptable, personalized support and objective, continuous measures of mobility and activity behavior. Methods A feasibility study comprising 6 in-depth case studies was carried out among people with early-stage dementia and their caregivers. Participants used a smartphone and smartwatch for 8 weeks for personalized support and followed goals for quality of life. Data were collected from device sensors and logs, mobile self-reports, assessments, weekly phone calls, and interviews. This data were analyzed to evaluate the utility of sensor data generated by devices used by people with dementia in an everyday life context; this was done to compare objective measures with subjective reports of mobility and activity and to examine technology acceptance focusing on usefulness and health efficacy. Results Adequate sensor data was generated to reveal behavioral patterns, even for minimal device use. Objective mobility and activity measures reflecting fluctuations in participants' self-reported behavior, especially when combined, may be advantageous in revealing gradual trends and could provide detailed insights regarding goal attainment ratings. Personalized support benefited all participants to varying degrees by addressing functional, memory, safety, and psychosocial needs. A total of 4 of 6 (67%) participants felt motivated to be active by tracking their step count. One participant described a highly positive impact on mobility, anxiety, mood, and caregiver burden, mainly as a result of navigation support and location-tracking tools. Conclusions Smartphones and wearables could provide beneficial and pervasive support and monitoring for rehabilitation among people with dementia. These results substantiate the need for further investigation on a larger scale, especially considering the inevitable presence of mobile and wearable technology in our everyday lives for years to come.

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

APA 7th

Thorpe, J., Forchhammer, B. H., & Maier, A. M. (2019). Adapting Mobile and Wearable Technology to Provide Support and Monitoring in Rehabilitation for Dementia: Feasibility Case Series. JMIR formative research. https://doi.org/10.2196/12346

Vancouver

Thorpe J, Forchhammer BH, Maier AM. Adapting Mobile and Wearable Technology to Provide Support and Monitoring in Rehabilitation for Dementia: Feasibility Case Series. JMIR formative research. 2019. doi:10.2196/12346. PMID: 31625951.

BibTeX

@article{thorpe2019-31625951,
  author  = {Thorpe, J. and Forchhammer, B. H. and Maier, A. M.},
  title   = {{Adapting Mobile and Wearable Technology to Provide Support and Monitoring in Rehabilitation for Dementia: Feasibility Case Series}},
  journal = {JMIR formative research},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.2196/12346},
  pmid    = {31625951},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2196/12346}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 41/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 24 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 41 of 100. Total 41 of 100.24 of the 58 points we could judge = 41 of 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR formative research)
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 2 / 5 2019 — within 10 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 31625951)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 24 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total 41 / 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 “computerized”

238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →