↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
371 Mendeley
Title
Usability and acceptability of technology for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic literature review
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/cia.s154717
Pubmed ID
Authors

Torhild Holthe, Liv Halvorsrud, Dag Karterud, Kari-Anne Hoel, Anne Lund

Abstract

The objective of this review was to obtain an overview of the technologies that have been explored with older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia (MCI/D), current knowledge on the usability and acceptability of such technologies, and how people with MCI/D and their family carers (FCs) were involved in these studies. Primary studies published between 2007 and 2017 that explored the use of technologies for community-dwelling people with MCI/D were identified through five databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, AMED, and CINAHL. Twenty-nine out of 359 papers met the criteria for eligibility. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality assessment. A wide range of technologies was presented in the 29 studies, sorted into four domains: 1) safe walking indoors and outdoors; 2) safe living; 3) independent living; and 4) entertainment and social communication. The current state of knowledge regarding usability and acceptability reveals that even if researchers are aware of these concepts and intend to measure usability and acceptability, they seem difficult to assess. Terms such as "user friendliness" and "acceptance" were used frequently. User participation in the 29 studies was high. Persons with MCI/D, FCs, and staff/other older adults were involved in focus groups, workshops, and interviews as part of the preimplementation process. Research regarding technologies to support people with MCI/D seems optimistic, and a wide range of technologies has been evaluated in homes with people with MCI/D and their FCs. A major finding was the importance of including people with MCI/D and their FCs in research, in order to learn about required design features to enhance usability and acceptability. Surprisingly, very few studies reported on the consequences of technology use with regard to quality of life, occupational performance, or human dignity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 371 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 16%
Student > Bachelor 41 11%
Researcher 39 11%
Student > Master 37 10%
Other 16 4%
Other 48 13%
Unknown 130 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 10%
Psychology 34 9%
Social Sciences 32 9%
Computer Science 17 5%
Other 65 18%
Unknown 148 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,320,703
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#246
of 1,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,860
of 343,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#10
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.