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 72 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives We tested the feasibility, implementation strategy and mechanism of impact of FindMyApps. FindMyApps is a tablet intervention consisting of a selection tool to help people with dementia find usable apps for self-management and meaningful activities, including training to support informal carers in employing errorless learning principles to help people with dementia learn tablet and tool usage. Methods We conducted an exploratory, pilot randomized controlled trial with a mixed-methods design. Twenty persons with mild dementia and carer dyads were randomly assigned to the FindMyApps group ( n = 10), receiving either the FindMyApps training and selection tool, or a control condition ( n = 10), receiving only a short tablet training. Pre- and post-test measurements at a three month follow-up, consisted of questionnaires and post-test semi-structured interviews. Results The FindMyApps tool was mostly perceived as useful and easy to use. Persons with dementia were generally able to learn how to use the tool, though they regularly needed support from informal carers. Persons with dementia found apps through the tool, which they used regularly. Persons with dementia and informal carers were positive about the training and support they received. No significant differences were found on outcome measures of persons with dementia, but based on effect sizes FindMyApps is a promising intervention. Conclusions Qualitative results indicate that the FindMyApps intervention has the potential to positively influence the self-management abilities and engagement in meaningful activities of people with dementia. Remarks are made to improve the intervention and recommendations are given for future effectiveness studies.Implications for rehabilitationThe person-centred tablet intervention FindMyApps has the potential to positively influence the self-management and engagement in meaningful activities in people with dementia.Based on the input of persons with dementia and informal carers, the FindMyApps intervention and study procedure will be further improved and evaluated in terms of effectiveness in an RCT.

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

APA 7th

Kerkhof, Y., Kohl, G., Veijer, M., Mangiaracina, F., Bergsma, A., Graff, M., et al. (2022). Randomized controlled feasibility study of FindMyApps: first evaluation of a tablet-based intervention to promote self-management and meaningful activities in people with mild dementia. Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1765420

Vancouver

Kerkhof Y, Kohl G, Veijer M, Mangiaracina F, Bergsma A, Graff M, et al. Randomized controlled feasibility study of FindMyApps: first evaluation of a tablet-based intervention to promote self-management and meaningful activities in people with mild dementia. Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology. 2022. doi:10.1080/17483107.2020.1765420. PMID: 32552074.

BibTeX

@article{kerkhof2022-32552074,
  author  = {Kerkhof, Y. and Kohl, G. and Veijer, M. and Mangiaracina, F. and Bergsma, A. and Graff, M. and Dröes, R. M.},
  title   = {{Randomized controlled feasibility study of FindMyApps: first evaluation of a tablet-based intervention to promote self-management and meaningful activities in people with mild dementia}},
  journal = {Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1080/17483107.2020.1765420},
  pmid    = {32552074},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1765420}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 72/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 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. 42 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 72 of 100. Total 72 of 100.42 of the 58 points we could judge = 72 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported 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 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology)
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 2022 — 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 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
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 32552074)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 42 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100.
Total 72 / 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-based”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “tablet-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →