Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
mHealth applications as an educational and supportive resource for family carers of people with dementia: An integrative review
Sarath Rathnayake, Wendy Moyle, Cindy Jones, Pauline Calleja. Dementia, 2018-04-09
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Family carers encounter several challenges related to caring for people with dementia, and they need support in managing care recipients’ health needs. This study aims to identify, appraise and synthesise the existing evidence on the use of mHealth/smartphone applications as an educational and supportive resource for family carers of people with dementia. An integrative literature review approach was used. Seven databases were searched. The search generated 117 articles, with seven meeting the inclusion criteria. Three categories and their attendant sub-categories emerged from the literature. The categories are ‘carer support’, ‘evaluation strategies’ and ‘barriers and challenges’. mHealth applications appear to be a feasible intervention for family carers of people with dementia despite the limited available research and barriers for their development and implementation. Further research on mHealth applications with strong methodological rigour and more research on mHealth applications as an educational and supportive resource for carers of people with dementia are needed.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rathnayake, S., Moyle, W., Jones, C., & Calleja, P. (2018). mHealth applications as an educational and supportive resource for family carers of people with dementia: An integrative review. Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301218768903
Vancouver
Rathnayake S, Moyle W, Jones C, Calleja P. mHealth applications as an educational and supportive resource for family carers of people with dementia: An integrative review. Dementia. 2018. doi:10.1177/1471301218768903. PMID: 29631492.
BibTeX
@article{rathnayake2018-29631492,
author = {Rathnayake, Sarath and Moyle, Wendy and Jones, Cindy and Calleja, Pauline},
title = {{mHealth applications as an educational and supportive resource for family carers of people with dementia: An integrative review}},
journal = {Dementia},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1177/1471301218768903},
pmid = {29631492},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301218768903}
}
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
- An integrative literature review approach was used.
- The search generated 117 articles, with seven meeting the inclusion criteria.
- Three categories and their attendant sub-categories emerged from the literature.
- The categories are ‘carer support’, ‘evaluation strategies’ and ‘barriers and challenges’. mHealth applications appear to be a feasible intervention for family carers of people with dementia despite the limited available research and barriers for their development and implementation.
- Further research on mHealth applications with strong methodological rigour and more research on mHealth applications as an educational and supportive resource for carers of people with dementia are needed.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 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 29631492) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.