Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Perceived Need and Acceptability of an App to Support Activities of Daily Living in People With Cognitive Impairment and Their Carers: Pilot Survey Study
Lai R, Tensil M, Kurz A, Lautenschlager NT, Diehl-Schmid J.. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020-07-31
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Plain-language summary
Background Modern technologies, including smartphone apps, have the potential to assist people with cognitive impairment with activities of daily living, allowing them to maintain their independence and reduce carer burden. However, such tools have seen a slow rate of uptake in this population, and data on the acceptability of assistive technologies in this population are limited. Objective This pilot study included older adults with cognitive impairment and their carers, and explored the perceived needs for and acceptability of an app that was designed to be a simple assistive tool for activities of daily living. In particular, this study aimed to assess the acceptability of common app functions such as communication, reminder, navigation, and emergency tools in this population, and to compare patients' and carers' responses to them. Methods A total of 24 German participants with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and their family carers separately completed two short questionnaires. The first questionnaire asked the participants with cognitive impairment and their carers to self-rate the patients' cognitive impairment levels and affinity to technology. Following a demonstration of the app, participants rated the usability and acceptability of the app and its functions in a second questionnaire. Results Participants rated themselves as much less cognitively impaired than their carers did (P=.01), and insight into the level of support they received was low. The majority of the participants (19/24, 79%) and their carers (20/24, 83%) had low affinity to technology, and even after the demonstration, 63% (15/24) of the participants had low interest in using the app. A breakdown of acceptability responses by app function revealed that participants were more amenable to the reminder function, the emergency feature, and a wearable form of the app. Features that centered around carers monitoring participants' movements were reported to be less acceptable to participants. Conclusions This study highlights the importance of focusing on acceptability and the consumer's perceptions in the development of assistive technology for older adults with cognitive impairment. Participants showed an aversion to functions they perceived as eroding their independence, while functions that more closely aligned with independence and autonomy were perceived as more acceptable.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lai, R., Tensil, M., Kurz, A., Lautenschlager, N. T., & Diehl-Schmid, J. (2020). Perceived Need and Acceptability of an App to Support Activities of Daily Living in People With Cognitive Impairment and Their Carers: Pilot Survey Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. https://doi.org/10.2196/16928
Vancouver
Lai R, Tensil M, Kurz A, Lautenschlager NT, Diehl-Schmid J. Perceived Need and Acceptability of an App to Support Activities of Daily Living in People With Cognitive Impairment and Their Carers: Pilot Survey Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2020. doi:10.2196/16928. PMID: 32735223.
BibTeX
@article{lai2020-32735223,
author = {Lai, R. and Tensil, M. and Kurz, A. and Lautenschlager, N. T. and Diehl-Schmid, J.},
title = {{Perceived Need and Acceptability of an App to Support Activities of Daily Living in People With Cognitive Impairment and Their Carers: Pilot Survey Study}},
journal = {JMIR mHealth and uHealth},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.2196/16928},
pmid = {32735223},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/16928}
}
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
- Results Participants rated themselves as much less cognitively impaired than their carers did (P=.01), and insight into the level of support they received was low.
- A breakdown of acceptability responses by app function revealed that participants were more amenable to the reminder function, the emergency feature, and a wearable form of the app.
Study details
- Participants24
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR mHealth and uHealth) |
| 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 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 24 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32735223) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years
Also tagged “daily-living”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “daily-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.