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 40 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Recent statistics released by Alzheimer's Disease International has highlighted how prevalent dementia will become in the next couple of years. Along with the increased incidence of individuals being diagnosed with dementia, there has also been an increment in the number of informal carers for people living with dementia. A recent report highlighted that in Australia, there are an estimated of 200,000 informal carers as of 2011. Caring for people who are living with dementia is not an easy task. Previous studies have highlighted that as much as 65% of caregivers do experience symptoms suggestive of depressive symptoms in the process of care. With the rapid advances in technology, it is of no surprise that information technology and its related innovations have been used in dementia care. A review of the existing literature shows that much of these innovations are focused on the care of patients affiliated with dementia. However, clearly interventions focusing on the needs of the dementia cohort of patient are limited. There are currently more emerging studies demonstrating the efficacy of web-based interventional toolkits for carers who are caring for individuals with dementia. Whilst there are previous studies demonstrating the effectiveness of smartphone interventions for dementia patients, there remains a paucity of smartphone based interventions for caregivers who are living with people with dementia. This technical note describes the conceptualization of an evidence based smartphone intervention for patients living with dementia, as well as for carers of these patients.

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

APA 7th

Zhang, M. W., Chan, S., Wynne, O., Jeong, S., Hunter, S., Wilson, A., et al. (2016). Conceptualization of an evidence-based smartphone innovation for caregivers and persons living with dementia. Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.3233/thc-161165

Vancouver

Zhang MW, Chan S, Wynne O, Jeong S, Hunter S, Wilson A, et al. Conceptualization of an evidence-based smartphone innovation for caregivers and persons living with dementia. Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine. 2016. doi:10.3233/thc-161165. PMID: 27129032.

BibTeX

@article{zhang2016-27129032,
  author  = {Zhang, M. W. and Chan, S. and Wynne, O. and Jeong, S. and Hunter, S. and Wilson, A. and Ho, R. C.},
  title   = {{Conceptualization of an evidence-based smartphone innovation for caregivers and persons living with dementia}},
  journal = {Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.3233/thc-161165},
  pmid    = {27129032},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/thc-161165}
}

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 7 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

Study details

How this study scored 40/100
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 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 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 0 of 2. 23 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Total 40 of 100.23 of the 58 points we could judge = 40 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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine)
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 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2016 — within 20 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 27129032)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 23 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total 40 / 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 “caregiver”

195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →