Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
MinderCare: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a digitally enabled dementia care service
Jeyasingh-Jacob J, Tecilla M, Cro S, Lai H, Frigerio G, Joby N, Chavarro Novoa C, Fabusoro S et al.. medRxiv, 2026-06-22
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Strengths and limitations of this study This study evaluates a digitally enabled remote monitoring model for people living with dementia that integrates passive in-home sensors and algorithm-derived digital biomarkers to detect clinically relevant changes such as infection risk, behavioural disturbance and physiological deterioration. The study is embedded within the North West London Integrated Care System, allowing evaluation of a remote monitoring service implemented within routine NHS and social care pathways in a large and socio-demographically diverse population. The mixed-methods design integrates continuous sensor data, standardised clinical assessments, linked electronic health records and qualitative interviews to examine algorithm performance alongside service feasibility, acceptability and sustainability. The comparative-effectiveness component is structured as a target trial emulation using linked electronic health records, with explicit specification of eligibility, treatment strategies, activation-index date, follow-up, outcomes, causal estimand and analysis plan. As a non-randomised target trial emulation using an externally matched comparator, the study may remain susceptible to residual confounding, particularly from unmeasured factors such as carer engagement, home suitability, willingness to accept monitoring and referral-route effects; attrition due to death, care home transition, and variability in home environments or device connectivity may also affect data completeness and interpretation.
Key findings
- Strengths and limitations of this study This study evaluates a digitally enabled remote monitoring model for people living with dementia that integrates passive in-home sensors and algorithm-derived digital biomarkers to detect clinically relevant changes such as infection risk, behavioural disturbance and physiological deterioration.
- The study is embedded within the North West London Integrated Care System, allowing evaluation of a remote monitoring service implemented within routine NHS and social care pathways in a large and socio-demographically diverse population.
- The mixed-methods design integrates continuous sensor data, standardised clinical assessments, linked electronic health records and qualitative interviews to examine algorithm performance alongside service feasibility, acceptability and sustainability.
- The comparative-effectiveness component is structured as a target trial emulation using linked electronic health records, with explicit specification of eligibility, treatment strategies, activation-index date, follow-up, outcomes, causal estimand and analysis plan.
- As a non-randomised target trial emulation using an externally matched comparator, the study may remain susceptible to residual confounding, particularly from unmeasured factors such as carer engagement, home suitability, willingness to accept monitoring and referral-route effects; attrition due to death, care home transition, and variability in home environments or device connectivity may also affect data completeness and interpretation.
Study details
- Participants100
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 35 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 22 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 35 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 100 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 35 out of 100. |
| Total | 35 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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. 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.
APA 7th
Jeyasingh-Jacob, J., Tecilla, M., Cro, S., Lai, H., Frigerio, G., Joby, N., et al. (2026). MinderCare: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a digitally enabled dementia care service. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.19.26356077
Vancouver
Jeyasingh-Jacob J, Tecilla M, Cro S, Lai H, Frigerio G, Joby N, et al. MinderCare: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a digitally enabled dementia care service. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.06.19.26356077.
BibTeX
@article{jeyasinghjacob2026-6d8c4b47,
author = {Jeyasingh-Jacob, J. and Tecilla, M. and Cro, S. and Lai, H. and Frigerio, G. and Joby, N. and Chavarro Novoa, C. and Fabusoro, S. and others},
title = {{MinderCare: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a digitally enabled dementia care service}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.06.19.26356077},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.19.26356077}
}