Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Smartwatch-Based Interventions for People With Dementia: User-Centered Design Approach
Goerss D, Köhler S, Rong E, Temp AG, Kilimann I, Bieber G, Teipel S.. JMIR aging, 2024-06-07
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Assistive technologies can help people living with dementia maintain their everyday activities. Nevertheless, there is a gap between the potential and use of these materials. Involving future users may help close this gap, but the impact on people with dementia is unclear. Objective We aimed to determine if user-centered development of smartwatch-based interventions together with people with dementia is feasible. In addition, we evaluated the extent to which user feedback is plausible and therefore helpful for technological improvements. Methods We examined the interactions between smartwatches and people with dementia or people with mild cognitive impairment. All participants were prompted to complete 2 tasks (drinking water and a specific cognitive task). Prompts were triggered using a smartphone as a remote control and were repeated up to 3 times if participants failed to complete a task. Overall, 50% (20/40) of the participants received regular prompts, and 50% (20/40) received intensive audiovisual prompts to perform everyday tasks. Participants' reactions were observed remotely via cameras. User feedback was captured via questionnaires, which included topics like usability, design, usefulness, and concerns. The internal consistency of the subscales was calculated. Plausibility was also checked using qualitative approaches. Results Participants noted their preferences for particular functions and improvements. Patients struggled with rating using the Likert scale; therefore, we assisted them with completing the questionnaire. Usability (mean 78 out of 100, SD 15.22) and usefulness (mean 9 out of 12) were rated high. The smartwatch design was appealing to most participants (31/40, 76%). Only a few participants (6/40, 15%) were concerned about using the watch. Better usability was associated with better cognition. The observed success and self-rated task comprehension were in agreement for most participants (32/40, 80%). In different qualitative analyses, participants' responses were, in most cases, plausible. Only 8% (3/40) of the participants were completely unaware of their irregular task performance. Conclusions People with dementia can have positive experiences with smartwatches. Most people with dementia provided valuable information. Developing assistive technologies together with people with dementia can help to prioritize the future development of functional and nonfunctional features.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Goerss, D., Köhler, S., Rong, E., Temp, A. G., Kilimann, I., Bieber, G., et al. (2024). Smartwatch-Based Interventions for People With Dementia: User-Centered Design Approach. JMIR aging. https://doi.org/10.2196/50107
Vancouver
Goerss D, Köhler S, Rong E, Temp AG, Kilimann I, Bieber G, et al. Smartwatch-Based Interventions for People With Dementia: User-Centered Design Approach. JMIR aging. 2024. doi:10.2196/50107. PMID: 38848116.
BibTeX
@article{goerss2024-38848116,
author = {Goerss, D. and Köhler, S. and Rong, E. and Temp, A. G. and Kilimann, I. and Bieber, G. and Teipel, S.},
title = {{Smartwatch-Based Interventions for People With Dementia: User-Centered Design Approach}},
journal = {JMIR aging},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.2196/50107},
pmid = {38848116},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/50107}
}
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
- Overall, 50% (20/40) of the participants received regular prompts, and 50% (20/40) received intensive audiovisual prompts to perform everyday tasks.
- Results Participants noted their preferences for particular functions and improvements.
- Better usability was associated with better cognition.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR aging) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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 38848116) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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.