Prescribing Assistive Technology for Cognition to Support Aging in Place: OTs' Perspective.

Fifteen therapists volunteered through social media groups, so they may be more interested in technology than the average OT, and the study reports what therapists say they do rather than what anyone was observed doing. Participants appear to come from one region and one healthcare system, so the referral patterns, funding and equipment access they describe may not match yours. Fewer therapists took part than planned because of a national healthcare strike; the authors argue the smaller groups allowed richer discussion and that no new ideas were emerging by the end. Nothing was measured in clients. No older adult was given a device and followed, so the paper cannot say whether these decisions lead to better use, safety or independence. Coding was done manually by a single researcher, with two others checking the codes and the later groupings.

Funded by Mitacs, with the first author also supported by a doctoral scholarship from the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé and a grant from the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the Université de Montréal; another author is supported by an FRQS research scholar award. Two authors declare roles at Eugeria, a company that distributes and designs the same kind of cognitive assistive technology the paper is about: one as innovation lab and product manager, the other as a medical expert. The findings themselves give a prominent role to company marketing and after-sales service in shaping which products therapists recommend.

Do not read this as evidence that cognitive assistive technology works, or that the conditions the therapists list identify who will benefit. No client was given a device and nothing was measured; fifteen therapists described how they decide, and what they described is their opinion about practice, not a tested rule.