Home › Research › Prevention trials
The Effectiveness of e-Health Solutions for Aging With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review
Dequanter S, Gagnon MP, Ndiaye MA, Gorus E, Fobelets M, Giguère A, Bourbonnais A, Buyl R.. The Gerontologist, 2021-09-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background and objectives e-Health solutions are an innovative approach to support aging with cognitive impairment. Because technology is developing at a fast pace, the aim of this review was to present an overview of the research regarding the effectiveness of these solutions. Moreover, the availability of these solutions was examined. Research design and methods Systematic searches were conducted in 7 databases. Full texts of potentially relevant references were assessed by 2 reviewers, and discrepancies were solved through discussion. Data on study characteristics, technology type, application domain, availability, outcomes, and effects were extracted. A categorization exercise and narrative synthesis were conducted. Results In total, 72 studies describing 70 e-Health solutions were identified. The majority of solutions comprised cognitive training for older adults, followed by educational and supportive web platforms for caregivers. Outcomes included mainly measures of cognition, psychosocial functioning, caregiving processes, caregiver-care receiver relationship, and activities of daily living. Positive effects of cognitive training technologies were observed on cognitive functioning of older adults, as well as those of supportive web platforms on behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia and caregiver self-efficacy. The effects of these solutions on depression in both target groups were inconclusive. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate to good. However, some important limitations were observed. Discussion and implications The review identified cognitive training solutions and supportive web platforms as the most effective on a limited number of outcomes. Although other solutions seem promising, further research has to overcome methodological issues. Furthermore, solutions for leisure and reminiscence and outcomes specifically related to independent living deserve more attention.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dequanter, S., Gagnon, M. P., Ndiaye, M. A., Gorus, E., Fobelets, M., Giguère, A., et al. (2021). The Effectiveness of e-Health Solutions for Aging With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa065
Vancouver
Dequanter S, Gagnon MP, Ndiaye MA, Gorus E, Fobelets M, Giguère A, et al. The Effectiveness of e-Health Solutions for Aging With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review. The Gerontologist. 2021. doi:10.1093/geront/gnaa065. PMID: 32525977.
BibTeX
@article{dequanter2021-32525977,
author = {Dequanter, S. and Gagnon, M. P. and Ndiaye, M. A. and Gorus, E. and Fobelets, M. and Giguère, A. and Bourbonnais, A. and Buyl, R.},
title = {{The Effectiveness of e-Health Solutions for Aging With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review}},
journal = {The Gerontologist},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1093/geront/gnaa065},
pmid = {32525977},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa065}
}
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 8 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
- Results In total, 72 studies describing 70 e-Health solutions were identified.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Gerontologist) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — 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 | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 32525977) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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 Prevention trials
Also tagged “controlled”
1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “controlled”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.