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 48 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives Smartphone and tablet devices appear to offer some benefits for enhancing the quality of life of people living with dementia, especially enabling them to stay independent and socially engaged in the early stages of the disease. However, there remains a need to understand the ways that these devices may enhance the lived experience of people living with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and their caregivers. Methods We interviewed 29 people living with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and their caregivers to explore their experiences of and attitudes towards smartphones and tablets. Results We generated three main themes: smart devices in practice as a person living with cognitive impairment; living in a digital world, and smart devices as appropriate and easily accessible support for everyday living. Smart devices were seen as valuable, versatile tools to complete essential and meaningful activities, and as necessary devices to participate in modern life. There was a strong desire for greater support to learn to use smart devices to facilitate living well with cognitive impairment. Conclusion The lived experience of people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment emphasises the central role of smart devices in their lives, and the need for research to move beyond rehearsal of what is needed to co-production and evaluation of smart technology-based educational interventions.

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

APA 7th

Wilson, S. A., Byrne, P., & Rodgers, S. E. (2024). 'I'd be lost without my smartphone': a qualitative analysis of the use of smartphones and tablets by people living with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and their caregivers. Aging & mental health. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2023.2205585

Vancouver

Wilson SA, Byrne P, Rodgers SE. 'I'd be lost without my smartphone': a qualitative analysis of the use of smartphones and tablets by people living with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and their caregivers. Aging & mental health. 2024. doi:10.1080/13607863.2023.2205585. PMID: 37139944.

BibTeX

@article{wilson2024-37139944,
  author  = {Wilson, S. A. and Byrne, P. and Rodgers, S. E.},
  title   = {{'I'd be lost without my smartphone': a qualitative analysis of the use of smartphones and tablets by people living with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and their caregivers}},
  journal = {Aging \& mental health},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1080/13607863.2023.2205585},
  pmid    = {37139944},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2023.2205585}
}

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 48/100
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 4 of 5; Sample size 1 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. 28 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 48 of 100. Total 48 of 100.28 of the 58 points we could judge = 48 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging & mental health)
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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 29 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 — / 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 37139944)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 28 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100.
Total 48 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “caregivers”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregivers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →