Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Selecting apps for people with mild dementia: Identifying user requirements for apps enabling meaningful activities and self-management
Kerkhof Y, Bergsma A, Graff M, Dröes RM.. Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering, 2017-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Touchscreen devices (e.g. tablets) can be supportive for people with mild dementia. This study identified user requirements for the development of a tool for selecting usable apps in the domains of self-management and meaningful activities. Eight focus groups with people with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia and informal carers were conducted using an exploratory study design. In study one, we identified meaningful activities and self-management support. In study two, we explored needs, wishes and abilities regarding the use of apps. The outcomes were analysed using inductive content analysis based on grounded theory. Three categories were identified in study one: (1) past meaningful activities, (2) present meaningful activities and (3) self-management support. Two categories emerged from the data of study two, with two and three themes, respectively. (1) Needs and wishes of users with regard to (a) the functionality of apps and (b) technical features of apps. (2) Abilities of users in terms of (a) physical and cognitive condition, (b) independent use of apps on a tablet and (c) skills to use the touchscreen and tablet. Based on these results, we will develop filters for people with mild dementia to select apps which match their individual needs, wishes and abilities.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kerkhof, Y., Bergsma, A., Graff, M., & Dröes, R. M. (2017). Selecting apps for people with mild dementia: Identifying user requirements for apps enabling meaningful activities and self-management. Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668317710593
Vancouver
Kerkhof Y, Bergsma A, Graff M, Dröes RM. Selecting apps for people with mild dementia: Identifying user requirements for apps enabling meaningful activities and self-management. Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. 2017. doi:10.1177/2055668317710593. PMID: 31186930.
BibTeX
@article{kerkhof2017-31186930,
author = {Kerkhof, Y. and Bergsma, A. and Graff, M. and Dröes, R. M.},
title = {{Selecting apps for people with mild dementia: Identifying user requirements for apps enabling meaningful activities and self-management}},
journal = {Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1177/2055668317710593},
pmid = {31186930},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668317710593}
}
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
- Based on these results, we will develop filters for people with mild dementia to select apps which match their individual needs, wishes and abilities.
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 (Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering) |
| 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 | 2017 — 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 31186930) |
| 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 “users”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “users”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.