Technologies to Support Community-Dwelling Persons With Dementia: A Position Paper on Issues Regarding Development, Usability, Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness, Deployment, and Ethics.
Franka Meiland, Anthea Innes, Gail Mountain and 17 others
PMID 28582262WHAT IT FOUND
Assistive technology may help people with dementia with daily living, activities, mood, social functioning, and may reduce service use, but the evidence is mostly from small studies without strong comparison groups.
Use it with training, support, and checks on consent, privacy, and changing abilities.
Key findings
01Benefits were reported for cognition, mood, social functioning, and service use, but most studies were uncontrolled and no cost-effectiveness studies were found.
02Usability in everyday life was barely tested, and people often needed caregiver or professional support.
03Ethical concerns depend more on how technology is used than on the device itself, especially autonomy, safety, privacy, and consent.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a position paper and literature review, not a trial of one treatment. The effectiveness section reviewed only reviews, not all single studies, so it gives a broad snapshot rather than a complete picture. Most included studies were uncontrolled and small; half had fewer than 10 people with dementia. Only 2 randomized controlled trials were found. No cost-effectiveness studies were found. The authors did not consult people with dementia about their experiences and priorities. Technology changes quickly, so evaluations of specific devices may become outdated.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that a particular assistive technology works for dementia. The paper reports mostly small studies without strong comparison groups and no cost-effectiveness evidence, so it is a map of the field, not proof of benefit.