Home › Research › Digital health tools
Aesthetic Experience in the Acceptance of Wearable Technology for People With Dementia: Critical Interpretive Synthesis
Yixuan Wei, John Ratcliffe, Dag Aarsland, Wei Liu. JMIR Aging, 2025-09-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
A total of 63 studies were included in this study. Findings suggest that aesthetically considered designs are preferred by users when concerning their acceptance toward wearable devices, particularly when devices symbolize empowerment and support personal engagement. The objects that evoke comfort, emotional connection, and personal meaning are more likely to be accepted by people with dementia. Improved aesthetics may also support caregivers through more consistent and effective data collection. This study uncovers a significant gap in the aesthetic design of wearable technologies for dementia care, limiting user acceptance and emotional engagement. By synthesizing key themes focusing on the interaction between user and product, this review proposes a conceptual framework for dementia care, emphasizing the importance of aesthetics in enabling more meaningful, inclusive, and human-centered design.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wei, Y., Ratcliffe, J., Aarsland, D., & Liu, W. (2025). Aesthetic Experience in the Acceptance of Wearable Technology for People With Dementia: Critical Interpretive Synthesis. JMIR Aging. https://doi.org/10.2196/72082
Vancouver
Wei Y, Ratcliffe J, Aarsland D, Liu W. Aesthetic Experience in the Acceptance of Wearable Technology for People With Dementia: Critical Interpretive Synthesis. JMIR Aging. 2025. doi:10.2196/72082. PMID: 41197638.
BibTeX
@article{wei2025-41197638,
author = {Wei, Yixuan and Ratcliffe, John and Aarsland, Dag and Liu, Wei},
title = {{Aesthetic Experience in the Acceptance of Wearable Technology for People With Dementia: Critical Interpretive Synthesis}},
journal = {JMIR Aging},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.2196/72082},
pmid = {41197638},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/72082}
}
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
- A total of 63 studies were included in this study.
- Findings suggest that aesthetically considered designs are preferred by users when concerning their acceptance toward wearable devices, particularly when devices symbolize empowerment and support personal engagement.
- The objects that evoke comfort, emotional connection, and personal meaning are more likely to be accepted by people with dementia.
- Improved aesthetics may also support caregivers through more consistent and effective data collection.
- This study uncovers a significant gap in the aesthetic design of wearable technologies for dementia care, limiting user acceptance and emotional engagement.
Why it matters
This review of 63 studies found that people with dementia are more likely to accept wearable devices that are aesthetically pleasing and emotionally meaningful, which may also help caregivers collect data more consistently. It concerns device design and acceptance, not any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants63
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR Aging) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | JMIR Aging: journal h-index 49 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 63 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 1 / 7 | Cited 4 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 3.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Wei Liu: h-index 14 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | King's College London: institution h-index 1,348 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41197638) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 39 / 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).
Related
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.
Related studies in Digital health tools
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.