Digital assistive technologies for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review of systematic reviews by the INTERDEM AI & assistive technology taskforce

Abstract

Introduction

The use of digital assistive technologies by and for people living with dementia is promising for supporting social health and advocated as a partial solution to growing prevalence worldwide. A state-of-the-art position paper published in 2017 identified challenges regarding digital assistive technologies, around five themes: development, usability, (cost-)effectiveness, implementation and ethics. This systematic review summarizes progress on the challenges found in 2017, and persisting or emerging challenges.

Methods

A systematic review of systematic reviews was conducted, focused on studies published after 2016. The inclusion criteria required that the target group included, at least in part, people with dementia living in the community and that the technologies aimed to support social health. For the five themes, literature searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase databases.

Results

A total of 112 reviews were included, covering various applications such as smart homes, care robots, exergaming and everyday technologies. No applications of artificial intelligence were included. The challenges included personalization of applications (development); limited use of standardized methods (usability); insufficient quantity and quality of randomized controlled trials (cost-effectiveness); overly high expectations of assistive technologies (implementation); and the need for more equitable access to technologies (ethics).

Conclusion

Much research has been conducted since the 2017 state of the art position paper. While some challenges identified at that time remain relevant, others have been addressed, and new challenges have emerged. Future research should prioritize emerging artificial intelligence applications; the development of integrated assistive technologies; evaluation using robust methods and meaningful outcomes; and the promotion of more accessible and inclusive technologies.

Keywords

Dementia assistive technology digital health artificial intelligence systematic review development usability implementation cost-effectiveness ethics

Introduction

Dementia is a major global health priority, with prevalence estimated at more than 50 million, which may double by 2050.¹ The high prevalence and complex nature of dementia lead to high economic costs, with the global annual cost of dementia care amounting to US $1.33 trillion.² There is currently no cure for dementia and new medications for Alzheimer's disease at best, produce small and time-limited effects on the rate of disease progression, for a subgroup of eligible people.^3,4 Early diagnosis and availability of personalized care and support therefore remain essential for people living with dementia to enjoy the best possible quality of life and good social health (a positive health state arising from the ability manage independently in daily life, engage in meaningful and pleasurable activities and maintain social networks, and meet societal obligations).^5,6 As part of providing effective personalized care and support, many global and national dementia policies emphasize the use of digital assistive technologies – by people with dementia themselves, family carers and health and social care professionals – especially to support those living at home, supported primarily by friends and family.⁷

The INTERDEM AI & Assistive Technology taskforce defines digital assistive technology as “any item, piece of equipment, product or system driven by electronics, whether acquired commercially, off-the-shelf, modified or customized, that is used to help people living with dementia in dealing with the consequences of dementia”⁸^(p.2). This includes digital technologies, such as televisions or smartphones, not purposely designed for people with dementia, but adapted to their needs, and few such technologies are provided systematically through health and social care. Many technologies are funded by people with dementia themselves or by family carers. People with dementia and their supporters experience the need for information about the condition, memory and cognitive support, engaging in social or meaningful activities and managing psychological distress,⁹ all of which may be helped by digital assistive technologies. Technologies primarily used by people with dementia may also indirectly benefit their supporters, such as family or informal carers. For example, hybrid exergaming interventions that combine virtual reality and physical activity have been shown to improve cognition in the short term and social functioning of people with dementia and competence of family carers.¹⁰ Interventions that support people to find and use software applications have been shown to increase capacity and reduce burden on informal carers.¹¹ Many people living with dementia wish to live independently at home for as long as possible,¹² suggesting a particularly important role for digital assistive technologies that support quality of life and social health of community-dwelling people with dementia.

Despite the promise of digital assistive technologies for supporting social health, a 2017 position paper from INTERDEM^8,13 (an interdisciplinary network supporting pan-European research on psychosocial interventions in dementia) identified important challenges related to their development, usability, (cost-)effectiveness, deployment (or implementation) and ethics.⁸ In development, challenges included accounting for individual variations in needs, abilities and preferences, developing technologies that address emotional needs alongside functional needs, and integrating digital assistive technologies into the physical environment and organizational health care processes. In the evaluation of usability, a fundamental challenge was a lack of research on this topic. Evaluating (cost-)effectiveness was challenging due to a lack of methodologically sound comparative studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A related implementation challenge was all stakeholders’ (i.e., technology users, funders and professionals) lack of access to trusted sources of information about what works. Another implementation challenge was inadequate infrastructure, such as internet or network connections, service provision, data storage, system integrity, privacy and security. Additionally, ethical issues related to users’ lack of understanding of technology and possible inability to provide informed consent to its use required more attention in evaluation studies. A number of actions were proposed, primarily for researchers, to address the challenges identified, such as including people with dementia in technology design and performing more studies on cost-effectiveness.^8(p.12)

Since the publication of the first INTERDEM position paper, the field of digital assistive technology for people with dementia has continued to develop rapidly, partly driven by adaptations during the COVID-19 pandemic,¹⁴ and also intensifying interest in the capability of artificial intelligence. In light of these developments, the goal of this literature review was to address three research questions:

To what extent have the challenges identified in the previous INTERDEM position paper been addressed?

What new or emerging challenges need to be addressed going forward?

In light of this, what are the current priorities for research and practice?

Methods

A systematic review of systematic reviews was performed by members of the INTERDEM AI & Assistive Technology Taskforce. PRISMA guidelines were followed in designing, executing and reporting on the study, although the review protocol was not pre-registered.¹⁵ A review of reviews provides a broad, yet detailed understanding of the current landscape, informing future research and practice in this rapidly evolving area.¹⁶

The inclusion criteria were: 1) the study was a quantitative or mixed methods systematic review; 2) the review was written in English; 3) the review was published in, or after, 2016 (the date of searches run in relation to the 2017 position paper, which this study is based on); 4) the review reported (at least partly) on persons with dementia living in the community; 5) included at least one study concerning a digital assistive technology; and 6) at least some of the technologies identified by the review aimed to support one or more of: self-management or (basic or instrumental) activities of daily living, engagement in meaningful and pleasurable activities or delivery of health or social care if this involved the person with dementia using technology. Protocols and any other form of review than a systematic review were excluded.

Parallel literature searches were conducted on each of the predefined topics (development, usability, (cost-)effectiveness, implementation and ethics) in Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase databases. Searches for four themes were conducted in June 2024 and for the development theme in September 2024. All of the searches shared common terms related to dementia, digital assistive technology and reviews. For each search, further terms related to the specific theme were then added to these common terms with the AND operator. See Supplementary File 1 for the full search strings for each theme.

Literature search results were imported into the software Rayyan.¹⁷ Following de-duplication, titles of the results from each search were initially screened by a single author and clearly irrelevant records were excluded. Subsequently, titles and abstracts were screened, and results that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. For the implementation theme, two reviewers screened 10% of the results, after which a single reviewer completed the process, as inter-rater reliability exceeded 90% and senior researcher capacity on this theme was limited. For all other themes, titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers working independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a senior researcher to reach consensus. Reviews that met the inclusion criteria were included for analysis according to each theme. Any given review could be included and analyzed from the perspective of multiple themes.

Relevant data from each included review were extracted by a single reviewer using a form adapted from a tool used for the 2017 position paper, and data were checked by a second reviewer. For all themes, the following information was recorded: nature of the technologies investigated, the total number of studies and participants included per review, and any challenges and research priorities discussed by the review authors. For the (cost-)effectiveness theme, outcomes, method of synthesis, reported overall risk of bias of included studies and any reported meta-analysis results were recorded. Formal assessment of the quality of the reviews themselves was not undertaken. Data extraction was performed by a single investigator and then checked by a senior investigator.

The technologies described in the reviews were heterogeneously defined (e.g., based on underlying hardware or software; specific applications of technology; or based on the purpose for which technology was implemented). An inductive, iterative clustering process was therefore undertaken to define categories of technologies. Tabulated vote-counting (a simple numerical synthesis summing the number of relevant studies) was used to present technologies investigated in reviews included in each theme. Narrative synthesis of challenges for research and practice identified by authors of included reviews was undertaken, with comparison to challenges and priorities identified in the 2017 position paper.⁸ Priority actions for researchers and other stakeholders were then formulated by the investigators.

Results

For each search, the number of unique records screened, as well as the reports assessed for eligibility and included in this review, is presented in Table 1. Figure 1 illustrates the full screening process and reasons for exclusions of full reports not included, for the development theme. Similar flow diagrams depicting the screening processes for the other themes are available in Supplementary File 2. Some reviews were included in more than one theme. Across all themes, this systematic review of systematic reviews included 112 unique systematic reviews in total.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram for the Development theme search and screening process.

Table 1.

Number of records and full reports screened and studies included within each theme based on the respective search and screening process.

Theme	Unique records screened (n)	Full reports screened (n)	Studies included (n)
Development	1101	91	47^14,18–63
Usability	284	57	39^{26,28,29,32,38,39,43,44,56,58–60,63–89}
(Cost-)effectiveness	1113	60	35^{10,19,23,25,30,35,41,45,46,49,53,57,59,61,90–110}
Implementation	1399	254	33^{18,22,28,29,33,44,45,47,56,68,69,71,72,86,91,100,102,110–125}
Ethics	1215	26	14^{38,39,56,60,71,76,82,89,91,110,119,126–128}

Data extracted from reviews within each theme are provided in Supplementary File 3. Table 2 shows the digital technologies addressed in the included systematic reviews by theme, along with the number of reviews within each theme that focused on each technology. Since many reviews addressed more than one digital technology, the total number of reviews per technology within each theme exceeds the number of systematic reviews included per theme. No reviews were focused on applications of artificial intelligence.

Table 2.

Type and number of digital technologies investigated in studies included within each theme.

	Technology
Theme	AAL, smart home & sensor-based (n studies)	Care robots & conversational agents (n studies)	Exergame & VR (n studies)	Telecare (n studies)	Wearable and tracking devices (n studies)	Screen- based software applications (n studies)	Everyday technologies (n studies)
Development	15	13	12	6	7	18	7
Usability	6	16	3	11	6	10	6
(Cost-) effectiveness	4	7	14	4	2	13	0
Implementation	8	8	11	12	11	16	4
Ethics	6	3	3	3	5	7	1

AAL: ambient and assisted living; VR: virtual reality.

Narrative synthesis of included reviews

Development

Of the 47 included reviews, eight included at least one meta-analysis,^{24,28,30,46,52–54,61,63} with the rest employing narrative synthesis. As shown in Table 2, there were more reviews on the development of software apps, ambient and assisted living technologies, robots, conversational agents and VR technologies, than on telecare, (wearable) tracking devices or everyday technologies.

Many reviews conclude that appropriate inclusion of people with dementia in the design process remains a challenge. For example, many developers seemed to include people with dementia in the development only as informants rather than co-creators, and methods such as iterative consultation and prototype evaluation were underused.⁵⁵ This is particularly pertinent for GPS tracking technologies and dementia-specific apps, leading to mismatched designs and inadequate attention to security and usability.^32,55 Moreover, people with dementia were often considered a homogeneous group for the purposes of inclusion in co-design, despite variation in needs by dementia type (e.g., Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's dementia) and stage. Other challenges to successful technology development detailed in the included reviews related to technical aspects of making applications personalizable, high development costs and concerns amongst developers regarding weak evidence for acceptance and effectiveness.⁶³ Even when development prioritized design aspects such as simplicity, personalization and interactivity, issues with technology adoption seemed to persist, especially for those with sensory impairments.^56,59

Usability

The inclusion of 39 reviews, collectively addressing applications of a wide range of different digital technologies, shows that one challenge identified in the 2017 position paper has been addressed, namely that there were then very few reviews to include. There has been an increase in interest in usability.

Regarding further challenges, authors of the included reviews continued to appeal for more involvement of technology end-users in design and development of technologies, to ensure usability of technologies.^{26,32,38,68,71,84} However, literature now goes further and deeper into the conceptual framework for usability, and the process of conducting usability and user experience (UX) studies. For example, several authors emphasized the importance of technologies being not only functional but also pleasurable and meaningful, recognizing UX and user satisfaction as key components of usability.^{44,56,63,69,70,81,86} A wide range of designs and methods were described but there is an ongoing challenge of poor utilization of standardized methods and instruments, and over-reliance on the ad hoc use of unvalidated interview guides and instruments that are insufficiently grounded in human factors engineering or human–computer interaction theory.^60,67,70,79 A more standardized approach would facilitate A/B testing of similar solutions and would facilitate benchmarking and quantitative comparisons between solutions rather than qualitative descriptions of single products.^26,63,76

In terms of defining and understanding the user in the context of usability, the timeliness and fit of technologies within the context of the dementia journey – the experience of needs changing as the disease progresses – were highlighted by authors as being under-addressed, with negative consequences for technology acceptance.^28,58,68,84 Additionally, there was limited mention of equity, diversity and inclusion in usability research, particularly in terms of including representative samples of technology end users.^71,74,80

(Cost-)effectiveness

Of the 35 included reviews, 15 included at least one meta-analysis,^{30,46,53,90–93,95,97,98,101,104,105,107,108} with the remainder employing narrative synthesis. Three reviews additionally sought evidence on the cost-effectiveness of assistive technologies in dementia care,^10,94,96 but only one of these eventually identified and included any relevant cost-effectiveness studies.⁹⁶ Amongst the meta-analyses, three reviews claimed low overall risk of bias of the included studies,^90,91,107 the rest noted moderate, high or unclear overall risk of bias.

Little research was found by review authors on the impact of technologies on delivery of health or social care, with minimal evidence for effectiveness and no indication of cost-effectiveness. Overall, most of the challenges identified in 2017 review remained: authors of several of the now-included reviews continued to note both insufficient quantity and quality of RCTs, and methodologically sound research in general^{23,45,59,91,97,102}; lack of an evidence-based consensus on acceptable alternative designs to RCTs^45,98; and on adequate and valid outcome measures^{19,30,45,46,49,61,93,97,99,101,109}; and, in line with our search results, some authors noted an absence of cost-effectiveness studies.^10,91,94,96 Additionally, new challenges were identified, including concerns about the number of studies including wealthy and educated segments of populations in the global north,^30,103 thus producing questions regarding real-world applicability of evidence from trials.^23,59

Implementation

Authors of some recent reviews considered that frustration arising from unrealistically high expectations of technology was a barrier to adoption and implementation. This contrasts with one of the challenges identified in 2017, that the perceived potential of digital assistive technologies was often unclear to users. This includes expectations around the ease of use and integration into daily life and health care workflows, as well as expectations in terms of the functional or interactive capabilities of, for example, robots.^56,129

Many other challenges identified in 2017 remain, and research in the intervening period has served to further specify the nature of these challenges. For example, where previously review authors noted poor usability of technologies as a barrier to implementation, this has now been further refined as due to unreliable or poor quality technologies, suggesting insufficient testing and validation before implementation.^{18,29,44,45,47,56,68,71,72,86,100,102,111,116,117,119,121,123} Poor and variable access to technologies has been further specified as relating to high out-of-pocket costs and lack of essential infrastructure such as home internet connections.^{18,33,56,68,110,111,114,115,117,119,122} The poor digital literacy of many people living with dementia, their supporters and care professionals, remains a challenge, and recent reviews also specifically highlighted a lack of training or implementation support for users of technologies currently on the market.^{45,68,71,114,121,124} Problems with reimbursement for developers of novel technologies were already noted in 2017, and more recently, authors also expressed that new regulatory burden on developers create a risk-averse and stifled innovation landscape that contributes to higher out-of-pocket costs.^{91,110,119,125} In 2017, authors reported concerns about privacy weighed on implementation and adoption, and more recent reviews highlighted additionally, a broader understanding of and concern about a wide range of ethical issues in relation to assistive technologies in dementia care as barriers to implementation.^{110,111,113,114,119,125} Finally, adverse consequences of assistive technologies such as stigma and depersonalization remains a concern.^{18,47,56,68,69,72,100,113,115,122–124} It is now recognized that adverse consequences can also negatively impact on informal caregiver well-being.^45,119

Ethics

The challenges identified in 2017 remain: authors are appealing for more research into the ethical implications of digital assistive technologies,^38,60 and highlighting difficulties in obtaining truly informed consent from participants with poor digital literacy.^39,126,127 However, previously the challenge was around lack of public awareness of ethical issues, now more authors of new reviews cited high awareness of and sensitivity to ethical issues amongst people living with dementia, their supporters and health and care professionals. In particular, increased attention was paid in recent reviews to the awareness of technology users of challenges regarding data privacy,^{60,76,91,119,127} balancing autonomy and safety for people living with dementia,^127,128 equitable access to technology for all who may benefit from it,^71,110,127 and the risk that dementia-specific assistive technologies may be stigmatizing.^56,60 The use of AI is creating new concerns in particular over for example security and validity.¹³⁰

Discussion

This review is based upon a previous position paper, identifying challenges with the development, usability, (cost-)effectiveness, implementation and ethics of digital assistive technologies for community-dwelling people living with dementia. We included 112 systematic reviews, addressing a broad range of technologies and applications.

Challenges identified from the included reviews and our recommendations are listed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Summary of main challenges identified and recommended actions for each theme.

Identified challenges	Recommended actions
Development
inclusion of people with dementia in design processes financial challenges for developers when promoting adoption and implementation	use and report on robust co-design methodologies taking into account which methods work best for each type of technology facilitate tailored technologies to personalized and diverse needs and preferences, considering the role of adaptive designs and the use of AI to re-align with the needs and capabilities of people living with dementia
Usability
need for more advanced and standardized designs and methodologies	use standardized quantitative and qualitative approaches, based on theories from human factors engineering (HFE) and human-computer interaction (HCI). establish interdisciplinary collaborations funding organizations should stress this interdisciplinary collaborations and the comparative and longitudinal usability studies policy makers and those purchasing digital assistive technologies should demand robust evidence of usability
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness
a dearth of high-quality primary research into the effectiveness, and especially the cost-effectiveness	researchers should adhere to high methodological standards RCTs have excellent explanatory power, whilst well executed. This should be supported by adequate funding alternative robust evaluative frameworks are needed relevant outcomes should be targeted on: biological, psychological and social; personalized for people with dementia and informal caregivers; cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective
Implementation
unrealistically high expectations of technology unreliable and poor quality technologies lack of training or implementation support for users	realistic and evidence based expectations regarding benefits of technology should be communicated a national, easy access database with information about different digital assistive technology applications, can be helpful in choosing technologies, like the Dutch organization Vilans¹³⁵ or the Alzheimer's Society in the UK.¹³⁶ use evidence-based implementation frameworks when implementing technologies in care collaborations between technology developers, policy makers and funders are needed to anticipate on reimbursement and standardized purchasing procedures adequate integration of digital skills into curricula for health and social care professionals in training are needed
Ethical issues
lack of inclusive research into ethical issues in this field concerns by researchers and technology users, regarding: o data privacy o equitable access to technologies o stigma related to dementia specific technologies o balancing autonomy and safety	more research on ethical implications of digital assistive technologies a balance between autonomy and safety must be continuously sought throughout the technology and research cycle together with people with dementia and their supporters specific ethical challenges related to AI and dementia should be addressed,¹³⁷ given risks of, for example, (a) poor training of AI based on selective data leading to biased systems, (b) privacy and data security concerns, (c) overreliance on AI further reducing autonomy, (d) inequality through affordability and device availability, (e) need for user involvement in design (f) security and safeguarding systems regulatory systems need to also keep up with AI developments to ensure safety.¹³⁸

Besides challenges identified, there were also positive developments since the previous position paper. The large number of included reviews regarding the topic usability demonstrates increasing interest and an understanding of this topic. This is also cited as an important factor impacting on implementation and more research has been published, specifying how other factors impacting implementation. Furthermore, results showed an increased awareness of ethical issues surrounding dementia and technology, particularly regarding data privacy. This could be related to the introduction of the EU General Data Protection Regulation in 2018.¹³¹

The large number of results identified highlights the increasing amount of research interest and activity in this field. However, the relatively small proportion of reviews included under the criteria seems to suggest little of this activity has productively advanced the field in line with the recommendations set-out in INTERDEM's 2017 position paper.⁸ It may be that adequate primary literature exists but reviewers have not prioritized the themes identified by INTERDEM. However, if reviews are broadly representative of underlying primary literature, the mismatch between INTERDEM's recommendations and research activity is concerning. The previous review and INTERDEM position paper have been well-disseminated, as demonstrated by the paper's field citation index, 61.85.⁸ This implies that researchers have been well aware of the challenges faced and priorities for future research and practice, meaning that structural barriers (such as lack of funding) or misaligned incentives (e.g., between technology developers bringing technologies to market, researchers trying to build an evidence base, and funders trying to limit spending) may therefore be responsible for any shortcoming in addressing these research priorities. For example, factors contributing to the ongoing absence of large-scale RCTs may be a lack of funding for these studies, or the criticism of this design's limitations when applied to digital technologies that may discourage funders from funding such studies or researchers from carrying them out.^132,133 The COVID-19 pandemic, whilst a driver of accelerated uptake of digital assistive technologies,¹⁴ may have also hampered the ability to conduct such studies. Lack of RCT-level evidence may explain the notable absence of recommendations related to specific digital assistive technologies, identified by a recent review of European dementia guidelines.¹³⁴ The lack of evidence-based consensus on appropriate alternative designs to RCTs may be due to lack of coordination and alignment between stakeholders. Particularly where there may be conflicting interests, between payers in health and social care, developers of technology, health and care professionals, researchers and people living with dementia and their supporters, strong leadership – for example, from national and international dementia organizations, and policy makers – will be necessary to achieve progress. In the included reviews and underlying primary literature, a wide-range of heterogeneous digital assistive technologies was addressed, although it was remarkable that none concerned applications of AI.

Given the results from all themes considered in this study, we identify three cross-cutting priorities for stakeholders (researchers, policy-makers, professionals, people with lived experience, technology developers and other stakeholders):

Increase the focus of research on innovative artificial intelligence solutions that may help improve personalization, accessibility, efficiency and effectiveness of digital assistive technologies for people being diagnosed and living with dementia, their supporters and health and care professionals.

Move away from researching, purchasing and implementing isolated digital assistive technologies, move towards integrated, person-centered digital health ecosystems and multi-level interventions; within this framework, establish consensus on meaningful outcome measures and appropriate evaluation methods that go beyond RCTs.

Reduce inequities in access and digital literacy, and strive for accessible and inclusive technology by engaging more diverse populations throughout design, research and implementation, and by making personalized training and implementation support integral components of digital assistive technologies. This includes people from less advantaged areas.

Strengths and limitations

This review stands out for the broad range of topics addressed and the inclusion of a large number of reviews addressing an extensive number of technologies, research methods and settings. In addition, it builds on a previous position paper, ensuring the continuity of knowledge. Nonetheless, some limitations are identified. Only reviews in English were included, which may have limited the comprehensiveness of results. However, the primary literature underlying the systematic reviews included in this study included articles not written in English. Another limitation of this study was that the included systematic reviews did not undergo formal quality assessment. Tools such as AMSTAR 2 are available for assessing the quality of systematic reviews,¹³⁹ and such assessments would be particularly relevant when the efficacy of an intervention was the primary focus of the study. However, as this was not the primary goal of this review and in light of the limited resources available for this unfunded research, quality assessment of the 112 included systematic reviews was not undertaken.¹³⁹ Finally, there are two general limitations of reviews of reviews that are important. The focus is on technologies in research studies that may not be representative of technologies in practice, and the combined time delay between primary research and results being published, and included in systematic reviews means that results may not represent the most recent developments. To overcome such limitations, a Delphi study is being conducted, to capture the current challenges and priorities as experienced by people living with dementia and their supporters, health and care professionals and technology developers. The results of both studies will be consolidated and integrated into a white paper in 2025, to provide comprehensive insight into the current and future state of priorities in the field of dementia.

Conclusion

Much research has been conducted since the previous position paper in 2017 but many of the challenges to the field of digital assistive technology for the support of people with dementia remain unresolved, whilst new challenges have also emerged. Future research priorities should focus research on the development, usability, effectiveness, implementation and ethics of AI applications; integration of digital assistive technologies in digital ecosystems; usability and inclusiveness of technologies; new research methods, including evaluation methodologies and outcome measures. Aside from more research, progress in the field will require continuing and better involvement of people with dementia and their supporters, and better engagement with funders of health and social care and of research and with commercial parties developing and bringing digital assistive technologies to market. Seeking alignment of stakeholders around priorities and evidence frameworks will require international leadership from civil society and policy-makers.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-dhj-10.1177_20552076251362353 - Supplemental material for Digital assistive technologies for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review of systematic reviews by the INTERDEM AI & assistive technology taskforce

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-dhj-10.1177_20552076251362353 for Digital assistive technologies for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review of systematic reviews by the INTERDEM AI & assistive technology taskforce by David Neal, Michael P Craven, Jane Cross, Shirley Evans, Christopher Fox, Laila Oksnebjerg, Isabel Alexandre, Aidin Aryankhesal, Arlene Astell, Ahmet Begde, Annabel Ditton, Thomas Engelsma, Rikke Gregersen, Pascale Heins, Eef Hogervorst, Aysegul Humeyra Kafadar, Jackie Poos, Louise Robinson, Duygu Sezgin, Hanneke JA Smaling, Dorota Szczesniak, Josephine Rose Orejana Tan, Marjolein de Vugt and Franka JM Meiland in DIGITAL HEALTH

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-dhj-10.1177_20552076251362353 - Supplemental material for Digital assistive technologies for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review of systematic reviews by the INTERDEM AI & assistive technology taskforce

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-dhj-10.1177_20552076251362353 for Digital assistive technologies for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review of systematic reviews by the INTERDEM AI & assistive technology taskforce by David Neal, Michael P Craven, Jane Cross, Shirley Evans, Christopher Fox, Laila Oksnebjerg, Isabel Alexandre, Aidin Aryankhesal, Arlene Astell, Ahmet Begde, Annabel Ditton, Thomas Engelsma, Rikke Gregersen, Pascale Heins, Eef Hogervorst, Aysegul Humeyra Kafadar, Jackie Poos, Louise Robinson, Duygu Sezgin, Hanneke JA Smaling, Dorota Szczesniak, Josephine Rose Orejana Tan, Marjolein de Vugt and Franka JM Meiland in DIGITAL HEALTH

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-dhj-10.1177_20552076251362353 - Supplemental material for Digital assistive technologies for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review of systematic reviews by the INTERDEM AI & assistive technology taskforce

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-dhj-10.1177_20552076251362353 for Digital assistive technologies for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review of systematic reviews by the INTERDEM AI & assistive technology taskforce by David Neal, Michael P Craven, Jane Cross, Shirley Evans, Christopher Fox, Laila Oksnebjerg, Isabel Alexandre, Aidin Aryankhesal, Arlene Astell, Ahmet Begde, Annabel Ditton, Thomas Engelsma, Rikke Gregersen, Pascale Heins, Eef Hogervorst, Aysegul Humeyra Kafadar, Jackie Poos, Louise Robinson, Duygu Sezgin, Hanneke JA Smaling, Dorota Szczesniak, Josephine Rose Orejana Tan, Marjolein de Vugt and Franka JM Meiland in DIGITAL HEALTH

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

For MPC, this research was supported by the NIHR MindTech HealthTech Research Centre. CF was supported by the NIHR HealthTech Research Centre in Sustainable Innovation. The authors also wish to thank information specialist Naomi Thorpe at the Institute of Mental Health, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, for running the usability search. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care in England. The authors thank Julieta Camino de la Llosa for her support in finalizing the references and final draft of the manuscript.

ORCID iDs

David Neal

Michael P Craven

Jane Cross

Aidin Aryankhesal

Ahmet Begde

Annabel Ditton

Aysegul Humeyra Kafadar

Hanneke JA Smaling

Josephine Rose Orejana Tan

Ethical approval

No human subjects were involved in this study, ethical approval was not sought.

Contributorship

Conceptualization – DN, MPC, JC, SE, CF, LO, AAs, PH, EH, LR, DSe, MdV, FJM; Formal analysis – DN, MCP, LO, Aar, AB, AD, TE, PH, AK, DSz, FJM; Investigation – DN, MPC, JC, SE, CF, LO, IA, AAr, AB, AD, TE, RG, PH, AK, JP, HS, DSz, JT, FJM; Methodology – DN, MPC, JC, SE, CF, LO, AAs, PH, EH, LR, DSe, MdV, FJM; Writing (original draft) – DN, PH, FJM; Writing (reviewing and editing) – all authors.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

All study data are available from the supplementary files accompanying this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Nichols

Steinmetz

Vollset

, et al. Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: an analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet Public Health 2022; 7: e105–e125.

Nandi

Counts

Bröker

, et al. Cost of care for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in the United States: 2016 to 2060. NPJ Aging 2024; 10: 13.

2023 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement 2023; 19: 1598–1695.

Nguyen

Mital

Knopman

, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lecanemab for individuals with early-stage Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2024; 102: e209218.

Amano

Reynolds

Scher

, et al. The effect of receiving a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias on social relationships of older adults. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2021; 50: 401–406.

Dröes

Chattat

Diaz

, et al. Social health and dementia: a European consensus on the operationalization of the concept and directions for research and practice. Aging Ment Health 2017; 21: 4–17.

World Health Organization. Global action plan on the public health response to dementia 2017–2025, https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/259615/9789241513487-eng.pdf (2017, accessed 28 January, 2025).

Meiland

Innes

Mountain

, et al. Technologies to support community-dwelling persons with dementia: a position paper on issues regarding development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2017; 4: e1.

Koh

Roes

de Vugt

, et al. What are the unmet needs in people affected by dementia? A scoping review of reviews (submitted). 2025.

10.

Van Santen

Dröes

Holstege

, et al. Effects of exergaming in people with dementia: results of a systematic literature review. J Alzheimers Dis 2018; 63: 741–760.

11.

Neal

Ettema

Zwan

, et al. Findmyapps compared with usual tablet use to promote social health of community-dwelling people with mild dementia and their informal caregivers: a randomised controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 63: 102169.

12.

Van der Roest

Meiland

Maroccini

, et al. Subjective needs of people with dementia: a review of the literature. Int Psychogeriatr 2007; 19: 559–592.

13.

INTERDEM. https://interdem.org/ (2025, accessed 15 March, 2025).

14.

Barbosa

Ferreira

Smits

, et al. Use and uptake of technology by people with dementia and their supporters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aging Ment Health 2024; 28: 83–94.

15.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J 2021; 372: n71.

16.

Lunny

Brennan

McDonald

, et al. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Syst Rev 2017; 6: 31.

17.

Ouzzani

Hammady

Fedorowicz

, et al. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 210.

18.

Amiri

Niazkhani

Pirnejad

, et al. Objectives, outcomes, facilitators, and barriers of telemedicine systems for patients with Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers and care providers: a systematic review. Arch Iran Med 2022; 25: 564–573.

19.

Bateman

Srinivas

Emmett

, et al. Categorizing health outcomes and efficacy of mhealth apps for persons with cognitive impairment: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e301.

20.

Behera

Condell

Dora

, et al. State-of-the-art sensors for remote care of people with dementia during a pandemic: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel) 2021; 21: 4688.

21.

Breasail

Biswas

Smith

, et al. Wearable GPS and accelerometer technologies for monitoring mobility and physical activity in neurodegenerative disorders: a systematic review. Sensors (Basel) 2021; 21: 8261.

22.

Brown

O’Connor

. Mobile health applications for people with dementia: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. Inform Health Soc Care 2020; 45: 343–359.

23.

Buele

Varela-Aldás

Palacios-Navarro

. Virtual reality applications based on instrumental activities of daily living (iADLs) for cognitive intervention in older adults: a systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2023; 20: 168.

24.

Burnand

Frost

Walters

, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions in the management of dementia-related psychosis. Br J Gen Pract 2024; 74: bjgp24X737445.

25.

Cheng

Zhou

Sabran

. Mobile app-based interventions to improve the well-being of people with dementia: a systematic literature review. Assist Technol 2024; 36: 64–74.

26.

Contreras-Somoza

Irazoki

Toribio-Guzmán

, et al. Usability and user experience of cognitive intervention technologies for elderly people with MCI or dementia: a systematic review. Front Psychol 2021; 12: 636116.

27.

Daly Lynn

Rondón-Sulbarán

Quinn

, et al. A systematic review of electronic assistive technology within supporting living environments for people with dementia. Dementia (London) 2019; 18: 2371–2435.

28.

Di Lorito

Bosco

Rai

, et al. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on digital health interventions for people living with dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2022; 37: 1–25.

29.

Elbaz

Cinalioglu

Sekhon

, et al.

A systematic review of telemedicine for older adults with dementia during COVID-19: an alternative to in-person health services?

Front Neurol 2021; 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.761965

30.

García-Casal

Loizeau

Csipke

, et al. Computer-based cognitive interventions for people living with dementia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Aging Ment Health 2017; 21: 454–467.

31.

Ghafurian

Hoey

Dautenhahn

. Social robots for the care of persons with dementia: a systematic review. ACM Trans Hum-Robot Interact 2021; 10: Article 41.

32.

Gillani

Arslan

. Intelligent sensing technologies for the diagnosis, monitoring and therapy of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review. Sensors 2021; 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21124249

33.

Goodall

Taraldsen

Serrano

. The use of technology in creating individualized, meaningful activities for people living with dementia: a systematic review. Dementia 2021; 20: 1442–1469.

34.

Hammink

JHW

Moor

Mohammadi

. Influencing health behaviour using smart building interventions for people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment: expert interviews and a systematic literature review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2023; 18: 1175–1191.

35.

Heins

Boots

LMM

Koh

, et al. The effects of technological interventions on social participation of community-dwelling older adults with and without dementia: a systematic review. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 2308.

36.

Hirt

Ballhausen

Hering

, et al. Social robot interventions for people with dementia: a systematic review on effects and quality of reporting. J Alzheimers Dis 2021; 79: 773–792.

37.

Hoel

Feunou

Wolf-Ostermann

. Technology-driven solutions to prompt conversation, aid communication and support interaction for people with dementia and their caregivers: a systematic literature review. BMC Geriatr 2021; 21: 157.

38.

Holthe

Halvorsrud

Lund

. Digital assistive technology to support everyday living in community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Clin Interv Aging 2022; 17: 519–544.

39.

Husebo

Heintz

Berge

, et al. Sensing technology to monitor behavioral and psychological symptoms and to assess treatment response in people with dementia. A systematic review. Front Pharmacol 2020; 10: 1699.

40.

Ienca

Fabrice

Elger

, et al. Intelligent assistive technology for Alzheimer's disease and other dementias: a systematic review. J Alzheimers Dis 2017; 56: 1301–1340.

41.

Klimova

Valis

Kuca

. Exploring assistive technology as a potential beneficial intervention tool for people with Alzheimer's disease – a systematic review. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2018; 14: 3151–3158.

42.

Liu

Yin

Tan

, et al. Mobile health applications for older adults: a systematic review of interface and persuasive feature design. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28: 2483–2501.

43.

Monnet

Craven

Dupont

, et al. Usability of web-based tools designed for communication and decision-making in dementia: systematic review and design brief. Int J Med Inform 2024; 188: 105484.

44.

Moyle

Arnautovska

Ownsworth

, et al. Potential of telepresence robots to enhance social connectedness in older adults with dementia: an integrative review of feasibility. Int Psychogeriatr 2017; 29: 1951–1964.

45.

Neal

van den Berg

Planting

, et al. Can use of digital technologies by people with dementia improve self-management and social participation? A systematic review of effect studies. J Clin Med 2021; 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040604

46.

Noh

Shim

. Effectiveness of robot interventions for cognitive and psychological outcomes among older adults with cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11: 2341.

47.

Peres

Campos

. A systematic review of reminder and guidance systems for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias patients: context, barriers and facilitators. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2024; 19: 2133–2146.

48.

Pillette

Moreau

Normand

, et al. A systematic review of navigation assistance systems for people with dementia. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2023; 29: 2146–2165.

49.

Pinto-Bruno

ÁC

García-Casal

Csipke

, et al. ICT-based applications to improve social health and social participation in older adults with dementia. A systematic literature review. Aging Ment Health 2017; 21: 58–65.

50.

Rai

Cavalcanti Barroso

Yates

, et al. Involvement of people with dementia in the development of technology-based interventions: narrative synthesis review and best practice guidelines. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e17531.

51.

Rai

Kernaghan

Schoonmade

, et al. Digital technologies to prevent social isolation and loneliness in dementia: a systematic review. J Alzheimers Dis 2022; 90: 513–528.

52.

Rashid

NLA

Leow

Klainin-Yobas

, et al. The effectiveness of a therapeutic robot, ‘paro’, on behavioural and psychological symptoms, medication use, total sleep time and sociability in older adults with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2023; 145: 104530.

53.

Saragih

Tonapa

Sun

, et al. Effects of robotic care interventions for dementia care: a systematic review and meta-analysis randomised controlled trials. J Clin Nurs 2021; 30: 3139–3152.

54.

Saragih

Wei

Batubara

, et al. Effects of technology-assisted interventions for people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nurs Scholarsh 2023; 55: 291–303.

55.

Suijkerbuijk

Nap

Cornelisse

, et al. Active involvement of people with dementia: a systematic review of studies developing supportive technologies. J Alzheimers Dis 2019; 69: 1041–1065.

56.

Sweeney

Clarke

Wolverson

. The use of everyday technologies to enhance well-being and enjoyment for people living with dementia: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Dementia 2021; 20: 1470–1495.

57.

Swinnen

Vandenbulcke

Vancampfort

. Exergames in people with major neurocognitive disorder: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2022; 17: 376–389.

58.

Thordardottir

Malmgren Fänge

Lethin

, et al. Acceptance and use of innovative assistive technologies among people with cognitive impairment and their caregivers: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int 2019; 2019: 9196729.

59.

Tyack

Camic

. Touchscreen interventions and the well-being of people with dementia and caregivers: a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr 2017; 29: 1261–1280.

60.

Chu

Bayat

, et al. Researched apps used in dementia care for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers: systematic review on app features, security, and usability. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e46188.

61.

Cui

, et al. Effect of virtual reality exercise on interventions for patients with Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review. Front Psychiatry 2022; 13: 1062162.

62.

Yousaf

Mehmood

Awan

, et al. A comprehensive study of mobile-health based assistive technology for the healthcare of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Health Care Manag Sci 2020; 23: 287–309.

63.

Sommerlad

Sakure

, et al. Socially assistive robots for people with dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis of feasibility, acceptability and the effect on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life. Ageing Res Rev 2022; 78: 101633.

64.

Al-Balushi

Doyle

Gallagher

, et al. Using Fitbit to track sleep and exercise in older adults with dementia. In: Atlantic Corridor Medical Student Research Conference, London, UK, 7 November 2019, pp.S366-S366. London: Springer.

65.

Ambegaonkar

Ritchie

de la Fuente Garcia

. The use of mobile applications as communication aids for people with dementia: opportunities and limitations. J Alzheimer's Dis Rep 2021; 5: 681–692.

66.

Bérubé

Schachner

Keller

, et al. Voice-based conversational agents for the prevention and management of chronic and mental health conditions: systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23: e25933.

67.

Boumans

van de Sande

Thill

, et al. Voice-enabled intelligent virtual agents for people with amnesia: systematic review. JMIR Aging 2022; 5: e32473.

68.

Boyle

Husebo

Vislapuu

. Promotors and barriers to the implementation and adoption of assistive technology and telecare for people with dementia and their caregivers: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22: 1573.

69.

Conway

Ryan

Harkin

, et al. A review of the factors influencing adoption of digital health applications for people living with dementia. Digit Health 2023; 9: 20552076231162985.

70.

Diaz Baquero

Dröes

R-M

Perea Bartolomé

, et al. Methodological designs applied in the development of computer-based training programs for the cognitive rehabilitation in people with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and mild dementia. Systematic review. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 1222.

71.

Elkefi

Blecker

Bitan

. Health information technology supporting adherence memory disorder patients: a systematic literature review. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15: 85–100.

72.

Fabricatore

Radovic

Lopez

, et al. When technology cares for people with dementia: a critical review using neuropsychological rehabilitation as a conceptual framework. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2020; 30: 1558–1597.

73.

Góngora Alonso

Hamrioui

de la Torre Díez

, et al. Social robots for people with aging and dementia: a systematic review of literature. Telemed E-Health 2018; 25: 533–540.

74.

Green

Dao

Moyle

. Design attributes of socially assistive robots for people with dementia: a systematic review. Int J Soc Robot 2024; 16: 415–427.

75.

Grigorovich

Kulandaivelu

Newman

, et al. Factors affecting the implementation, use, and adoption of real-time location system technology for persons living with cognitive disabilities in long-term care homes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23: e22831.

76.

Kiuchi

Otsu

Hayashi

. Psychological insights into the research and practice of embodied conversational agents, chatbots and social assistive robots: a systematic meta-review. Behav Inf Technol 2024; 43: 3696–3736.

77.

Leung

Wong

WWY

, et al. The application of technology to improve cognition in older adults: a review and suggestions for future directions. Psych J 2022; 11: 583–599.

78.

Liapis

Harding

. Meaningful use of computers has a potential therapeutic and preventative role in dementia care: a systematic review. Australa J Ageing 2017; 36: 299–307.

79.

Mahmoudi

Molinari

Van Der Roest

, et al. 506 – Methodologies used to study the feasibility, usability and effectiveness of social robots in clinical and social care settings for elderly adults. Int Psychogeriatr 2021; 33: 59.

80.

Mc Ardle

Jabbar

Del Din

, et al. Using digital technology to quantify habitual physical activity in community dwellers with cognitive impairment: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2023; 25: e44352.

81.

Miguel Cruz

Daum

Comeau

, et al. Acceptance, adoption, and usability of information and communication technologies for people living with dementia and their care partners: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2023; 18: 443–457.

82.

Nkodo

J-A

Gana

Debacq

, et al. The role of telemedicine in the management of the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2022; 30: 1135–1150.

83.

Rampioni

Stara

Felici

, et al. Embodied conversational agents for patients with dementia: thematic literature analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021; 9: e25381.

84.

Sanders

Scott

. Literature review: technological interventions and their impact on quality of life for people living with dementia. BMJ Health Care Inform 2020; 27: e100064.

85.

Sayma

Tuijt

Cooper

, et al. Are we there yet? Immersive virtual reality to improve cognitive function in dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Gerontologist 2020; 60: e502–e512.

86.

Sekhon

Launay

, et al. Telemedicine and the rural dementia population: a systematic review. Maturitas 2021; 143: 105–114.

87.

Tuena

Pedroli

Trimarchi

, et al. Usability issues of clinical and research applications of virtual reality in older people: a systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci 2020; 14: 93.

88.

Tunnard

Gillam

Harvey

, et al. The acceptability and effectiveness of eHealth interventions to support assessment and decision-making for people with dementia living in care homes: a systematic review. Front Dement 2022; 1: 977561.

89.

Van der Roest

Wenborn

Pastink

, et al. Assistive technology for memory support in dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6: Cd009627.

90.

Abdullahi

Wong

TWL

SSM

. Effects of home-based and telerehabilitation exercise on mental and physical health, and disease cost in people with Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev 2024; 97: 102284.

91.

Brims

Oliver

. Effectiveness of assistive technology in improving the safety of people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Ment Health 2019; 23: 942–951.

92.

Chae

Lee

. Effectiveness of online-based cognitive intervention in community-dwelling older adults with cognitive dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2023; 38: e5853.

93.

Cho

Shin

Seok

, et al. The effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions using information and communication technologies for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2023; 138: 104392.

94.

Cotelli

Manenti

Brambilla

, et al. Cognitive telerehabilitation in mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2019; 25: 67–79.

95.

Domenicucci

Ferrandes

Sarlo

, et al. Efficacy of ICT-based interventions in improving psychological outcomes among older adults with MCI and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev 2022; 82: 101781.

96.

Eaglestone

Gkaintatzi

Jiang

, et al. Cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for mild cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review of economic evaluations and a review of reviews. Pharmacoecon Open 2023; 7: 887–914.

97.

Ferreira-Brito

Ribeiro

Aguiar de Sousa

, et al. Are video games effective to promote cognition and everyday functional capacity in mild cognitive impairment/dementia patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Alzheimers Dis 2021; 84: 329–341.

98.

Hill

Mowszowski

Naismith

, et al. Computerized cognitive training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry 2017; 174: 329–340.

99.

Kim

Pang

Kim

J-H

. The effectiveness of virtual reality for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 2019; 19: 219.

100.

Lee

Gerritzen

McDermott

, et al. Exploring the role of web-based interventions in the self-management of dementia: systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23: e26551.

101.

Liang

Lin

, et al. Comparison of multiple interventions for older adults with Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment: a PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97: e10744.

102.

Maia

Coutinho

JFV

Sousa

, et al. Assistive technologies for demented elderly: a systematic review. Acta Paul Enferm 2018; 31: 651–658.

103.

Martínez-Alcalá

Pliego-Pastrana

Rosales-Lagarde

, et al. Information and communication technologies in the care of the elderly: systematic review of applications aimed at patients with dementia and caregivers. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2016; 3: e6.

104.

Ong

Tang

Tam

. Effectiveness of robot therapy in the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms for individuals with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res 2021; 140: 381–394.

105.

Papaioannou

Voinescu

Petrini

, et al. Efficacy and moderators of virtual reality for cognitive training in people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis 2022; 88: 1341–1370.

106.

Park

Bak

Kim

, et al. Animal-assisted and pet-robot interventions for ameliorating behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomedicines 2020; 8: 150.

107.

Ren

Wang

Liu

, et al. Effects of immersive and non-immersive virtual reality-based rehabilitation training on cognition, motor function, and daily functioning in patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2024; 38: 305–321.

108.

Wen

Yan

Wang

, et al. The effectiveness of nursing interventions for elderly dementia patients based on virtual reality technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev 2024; 93: 102135.

109.

Zhao

Feng

, et al. Effectiveness of exergaming in improving cognitive and physical function in people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: systematic review. JMIR Serious Games 2020; 8: e16841.

110.

Zou

Harvard

Qian

, et al. A systematic review of digital health technologies for the care of older adults during COVID-19 pandemic. Digit Health 2023; 9: 20552076231191050.

111.

Alves

Casali

Veras

, et al. A systematic review of home-setting psychoeducation interventions for behavioral changes in dementia: some lessons for the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic assistance. Front Psychiatry 2020; 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.577871

112.

Costanzo

Arcidiacono

Rodolico

, et al. Diagnostic and interventional implications of telemedicine in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: a literature review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2020; 35: 12–28.

113.

Cullen

Mazhar

Smith

, et al. Wearable and portable GPS solutions for monitoring mobility in dementia: a systematic review. Sensors 2022; 22: 3336.

114.

Gentry

Lapid

Rummans

. Geriatric telepsychiatry: systematic review and policy considerations. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2019; 27: 109–127.

115.

Gerbaudo-González

Rodríguez-González

Facal-Mayo

, et al. Personalized interactive multimedia systems to support meaningful activities in dementia care: a systematic review. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2024; 127: 105575.

116.

Joddrell

Astell

. Studies involving people with dementia and touchscreen technology: a literature review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2016; 3: e10.

117.

Kruse

Fohn

Umunnakwe

, et al. Evaluating the facilitators, barriers, and medical outcomes commensurate with the use of assistive technology to support people with dementia: a systematic review literature. Healthcare 2020; 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8030278

118.

Lee

Park

Lee

. Effects of mobile health applications in older adults with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Adult Nurs 2024; 36: 112–125.

119.

Lee-Cheong

Amanullah

Jardine

. New assistive technologies in dementia and mild cognitive impairment care: a PubMed review. Asian J Psychiatr 2022; 73: 103135.

120.

Øksnebjerg

Janbek

Woods

, et al. Assistive technology designed to support self-management of people with dementia: user involvement, dissemination, and adoption. A scoping review. Int Psychogeriatr 2020; 32: 937–953.

121.

Son

Park

J-H

. Ecological effects of VR-based cognitive training on ADL and IADL in MCI and AD patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 15875.

122.

Sriram

Jenkinson

Peters

. Informal carers’ experience of assistive technology use in dementia care at home: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 2019; 19: 160.

123.

Watson

Hanna

Talbot

, et al. A systematic review of digital access to post-diagnostic health and social care services for dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2024; 39: e6119.

124.

Pittman

Price

, et al. Telemedicine and dementia care: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2021; 22: 1396–1402. e1318.

125.

Zhu

Dong

, et al. How tablets/applications enhance social connections and social support in people with dementia: a qualitative systematic review. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2023; 32: 727–743.

126.

Flynn

Healy

Barry

, et al. Key stakeholders’ experiences and perceptions of virtual reality for older adults living with dementia: systematic review and thematic synthesis. JMIR Serious Games 2022; 10: e37228.

127.

Howes

Gastmans

. Electronic tracking devices in dementia care: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2021; 95: 104419.

128.

Zander

Johansson-Pajala

Gustafsson

. Methods to evaluate perspectives of safety, independence, activity, and participation in older persons using welfare technology. A systematic review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2020; 15: 373–393.

129.

Guisado-Fernández

Giunti

Mackey

, et al. Factors influencing the adoption of smart health technologies for people with dementia and their informal caregivers: scoping review and design framework. JMIR Aging 2019; 2: e12192.

130.

Dino

Pressman

Cohen

, et al. Ethics in digital phenotyping: considerations regarding Alzheimer's disease, speech and artificial intelligence. J Med Ethics 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110252

131.

European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj (2016, accessed 17 March, 2025).

132.

Ioannidis

. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 281–286.

133.

Mohr

Schueller

Riley

, et al. Trials of intervention principles: evaluation methods for evolving behavioral intervention technologies. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17: e166.

134.

Neal

Bartels

Berdai Chaouni

, et al. Effective for whom? A review of psychological and social intervention recommendations in European dementia care guidelines through the lenses of social health and intersectionality. Behav Sci 2025; 15: 457.

135.

Vilans. https://www.vilans.org (2025, accessed 17 March, 2025).

136.

Alzheimer’s Society. How technology can help, https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/get-support/staying-independent/how-technology-can-help (n.d., accessed 3 April, 2025).

137.

Lukkien

DRM

Ipakchian Askari

Stolwijk

, et al. Making co-design more responsible: case study on the development of an AI-based decision support system in dementia care. JMIR Hum Factors 2024; 11: e55961.

138.

Freyer

Wiest

Kather

, et al. A future role for health applications of large language models depends on regulators enforcing safety standards. Lancet Digit Health 2024; 6: e662–e672.

139.

Shea

Reeves

Wells

, et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Br Med J 2017; 358: j4008.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB

0.26 MB