Home › Research › Prevention trials
Usability and User Experience of Cognitive Intervention Technologies for Elderly People With MCI or Dementia: A Systematic Review
Contreras-Somoza LM, Irazoki E, Toribio-Guzmán JM, de la Torre-Díez I, Diaz-Baquero AA, Parra-Vidales E, Perea-Bartolomé MV, Franco-Martín MÁ.. Frontiers in psychology, 2021-04-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Incorporating technology in cognitive interventions represents an innovation, making them more accessible, flexible, and cost-effective. This will not be feasible without adequate user-technology fit. Bearing in mind the importance of developing cognitive interventions whose technology is appropriate for elderly people with cognitive impairment, the objective of this systematic review was to find evidence about usability and user experience (UX) measurements and features of stimulation, training, and cognitive rehabilitation technologies for older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. Method The Medline, PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and PsycINFO databases were searched for literature published in the last 10 years (2009-2019), and three researchers independently reviewed potentially eligible studies, following specific inclusion criteria. A systematic review of the studies was conducted, presenting a qualitative synthesis of usability and UX measures with their outcomes, study characteristics and features of the cognitive intervention technologies. Results Ten studies were selected: five were cognitive stimulation and five were cognitive training. Most of them (60%) were computer-based programs with a serious game format. Efficiency and effectiveness were the most frequent measurements used for collecting objective usability data, showing that elderly people with cognitive impairment require more time (45%) and help (40%) but can complete tasks (60%). Regarding UX or subjective usability data, questionnaires and scales were the most used methods, reporting positive experience despite certain difficulties with the interface in five studies. Conclusion Measuring usability and UX in cognitive intervention technologies for older adults with MCI or dementia provides an integrated view that can contribute to their development according to the needs and characteristics of the target population. More research is required to include this population group in usability and UX studies, as well as standardized tools and consensus on the relationship of these terms to guarantee the future effectiveness of cognitive intervention technologies. Review registration This review was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42020158147) International Register of Systematic Review Protocols.
Key findings
- Results Ten studies were selected: five were cognitive stimulation and five were cognitive training.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in psychology) |
| 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 |
| 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 | 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 33967901) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Contreras-Somoza, L. M., Irazoki, E., Toribio-Guzmán, J. M., de la Torre-Díez, I., Diaz-Baquero, A. A., Parra-Vidales, E., et al. (2021). Usability and User Experience of Cognitive Intervention Technologies for Elderly People With MCI or Dementia: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636116
Vancouver
Contreras-Somoza LM, Irazoki E, Toribio-Guzmán JM, de la Torre-Díez I, Diaz-Baquero AA, Parra-Vidales E, et al. Usability and User Experience of Cognitive Intervention Technologies for Elderly People With MCI or Dementia: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in psychology. 2021. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636116. PMID: 33967901.
BibTeX
@article{contrerassomoza2021-33967901,
author = {Contreras-Somoza, L. M. and Irazoki, E. and Toribio-Guzmán, J. M. and de la Torre-Díez, I. and Diaz-Baquero, A. A. and Parra-Vidales, E. and Perea-Bartolomé, M. V. and MÁ, Franco-Martín},
title = {{Usability and User Experience of Cognitive Intervention Technologies for Elderly People With MCI or Dementia: A Systematic Review}},
journal = {Frontiers in psychology},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636116},
pmid = {33967901},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636116}
}