↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 238 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 18%
Student > Bachelor 32 13%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Master 25 11%
Other 14 6%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 60 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 11%
Social Sciences 26 11%
Psychology 22 9%
Computer Science 13 5%
Other 46 19%
Unknown 75 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,175,723
of 13,177,477 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#150
of 1,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,145
of 268,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#11
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,177,477 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 1,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 268,661 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.