alzhub.org
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.

Home › Research › Prevention trials

Are We There Yet? Immersive Virtual Reality to Improve Cognitive Function in Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment

Sayma M, Tuijt R, Cooper C, Walters K.. The Gerontologist, 2020-09-01

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 69 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background and objectives Cognitive training therapies may delay cognitive deterioration in dementia. There is potential to enhance delivery through immersive virtual reality (IVR), as removing potential distractors for cognitively impaired individuals can enhance their experience, resulting in increased engagement. Evidence in this field is emerging and not yet synthesized. We aimed to summarize research investigating the use of IVR in dementia to evaluate the current extent of use, acceptability, feasibility, and potential effectiveness. We also aimed to identify gaps in current research and to create a set of recommendations in utilizing this therapy. Research design and methods A systematic literature review was conducted. Our review was registered with PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42019122295. We undertook searches of five databases, article references, and citations. Key authors in the field of health care VR were also contacted to identify additional papers. Articles were assessed for inclusion by two researchers independently. Data were extracted using standardized forms. Results Our search identified a total of 2,824 citations, following screening for duplicates and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, five studies were included for analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous, with small sample sizes and mixed outcomes. Discussion and implications We were unable to reach definitive conclusions over the use, acceptability, and effectiveness of IVR for dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Future studies should focus on ensuring their interventions are truly immersive, developing more robust controls and account for the rapid rate of obsolescence in digital technologies.

Key findings

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

Study details

How this study scored 69/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 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 0 of 2. 40 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 69 of 100. Total 69 of 100.40 of the 58 points we could judge = 69 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported 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 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Gerontologist)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”)
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 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 2,824 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 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
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 31600389)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 40 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100.
Total 69 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Sayma, M., Tuijt, R., Cooper, C., & Walters, K. (2020). Are We There Yet? Immersive Virtual Reality to Improve Cognitive Function in Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz132

Vancouver

Sayma M, Tuijt R, Cooper C, Walters K. Are We There Yet? Immersive Virtual Reality to Improve Cognitive Function in Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment. The Gerontologist. 2020. doi:10.1093/geront/gnz132. PMID: 31600389.

BibTeX

@article{sayma2020-31600389,
  author  = {Sayma, M. and Tuijt, R. and Cooper, C. and Walters, K.},
  title   = {{Are We There Yet? Immersive Virtual Reality to Improve Cognitive Function in Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment}},
  journal = {The Gerontologist},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1093/geront/gnz132},
  pmid    = {31600389},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz132}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “assessment”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assessment”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →