Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
FindMyApps eHealth intervention improves quality, not quantity, of home tablet use by people with dementia
Neal DP, Kuiper L, Pistone D, Osinga C, Nijland S, Ettema T, Dijkstra K, Muller M et al.. Frontiers in medicine, 2023-05-30
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction FindMyApps is a tablet-based eHealth intervention, designed to improve social health in people with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment. Methods FindMyApps has been subject to a randomized controlled trial (RCT), Netherlands Trial Register NL8157. Following UK Medical Research Council guidance, a mixed methods process evaluation was conducted. The goal was to investigate the quantity and quality of tablet use during the RCT, and which context, implementation, and mechanisms of impact (usability, learnability and adoption) factors might have influenced this. For the RCT, 150 community dwelling people with dementia and their caregivers were recruited in the Netherlands. For the process evaluation, tablet-use data were collected by proxy-report instrument from all participants' caregivers, FindMyApps app-use data were registered using analytics software among all experimental arm participants, and semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were conducted with a purposively selected sample of participant-caregiver dyads. Quantitative data were summarized and between group differences were analyzed, and qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Results There was a trend for experimental arm participants to download more apps, but there were no statistically significant differences between experimental and control arm participants regarding quantity of tablet use. Qualitative data revealed that experimental arm participants experienced the intervention as easier to use and learn, and more useful and fun than control arm participants. Adoption of tablet app use was lower than anticipated in both arms. Conclusions A number of context, implementation and mechanism of impact factors were identified, which might explain these results and may inform interpretation of the pending RCT main effect results. FindMyApps seems to have had more impact on the quality than quantity of home tablet use.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Neal, D. P., Kuiper, L., Pistone, D., Osinga, C., Nijland, S., Ettema, T., et al. (2023). FindMyApps eHealth intervention improves quality, not quantity, of home tablet use by people with dementia. Frontiers in medicine. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1152077
Vancouver
Neal DP, Kuiper L, Pistone D, Osinga C, Nijland S, Ettema T, et al. FindMyApps eHealth intervention improves quality, not quantity, of home tablet use by people with dementia. Frontiers in medicine. 2023. doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1152077. PMID: 37324141.
BibTeX
@article{neal2023-37324141,
author = {Neal, D. P. and Kuiper, L. and Pistone, D. and Osinga, C. and Nijland, S. and Ettema, T. and Dijkstra, K. and Muller, M. and others},
title = {{FindMyApps eHealth intervention improves quality, not quantity, of home tablet use by people with dementia}},
journal = {Frontiers in medicine},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3389/fmed.2023.1152077},
pmid = {37324141},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1152077}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results There was a trend for experimental arm participants to download more apps, but there were no statistically significant differences between experimental and control arm participants regarding quantity of tablet use.
- Qualitative data revealed that experimental arm participants experienced the intervention as easier to use and learn, and more useful and fun than control arm participants.
- Conclusions A number of context, implementation and mechanism of impact factors were identified, which might explain these results and may inform interpretation of the pending RCT main effect results.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| 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 | 2023 — 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 37324141) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 “tablet”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “tablet”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.