Van der Roest Henriëtte G, Wenborn Jennifer, Pastink Channah, Dröes Rose-Marie, Orrell Martin
Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1007 MB.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 11;6(6):CD009627. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009627.pub2.
The sustained interest in electronic assistive technology in dementia care has been fuelled by the urgent need to develop useful approaches to help support people with dementia at home. Also the low costs and wide availability of electronic devices make it more feasible to use electronic devices for the benefit of disabled persons. Information Communication Technology (ICT) devices designed to support people with dementia are usually referred to as Assistive Technology (AT) or Electronic Assistive Technology (EAT). By using AT in this review we refer to electronic assistive devices. A range of AT devices has been developed to support people with dementia and their carers to manage their daily activities and to enhance safety, for example electronic pill boxes, picture phones, or mobile tracking devices. Many are commercially available. However, the usefulness and user-friendliness of these devices are often poorly evaluated. Although reviews of (electronic) memory aids do exist, a systematic review of studies focusing on the efficacy of AT for memory support in people with dementia is lacking. Such a review would guide people with dementia and their informal and professional carers in selecting appropriate AT devices.
Primary objectiveTo assess the efficacy of AT for memory support in people with dementia in terms of daily performance of personal and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL), level of dependency, and admission to long-term care. Secondary objectiveTo assess the impact of AT on: users (autonomy, usefulness and user-friendliness, adoption of AT); cognitive function and neuropsychiatric symptoms; need for informal and formal care; perceived quality of life; informal carer burden, self-esteem and feelings of competence; formal carer work satisfaction, workload and feelings of competence; and adverse events.
We searched ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), on 10 November 2016. ALOIS is maintained by the Information Specialists of the CDCIG and contains studies in the areas of dementia prevention, dementia treatment and cognitive enhancement in healthy people. We also searched the following list of databases, adapting the search strategy as necessary: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Databases, up to May 2016; The Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies; DBLP Computer Science Bibliography; HCI Bibliography: Human-Computer Interaction Resources; and AgeInfo, all to June 2016; PiCarta; Inspec; Springer Link Lecture Notes; Social Care Online; and IEEE Computer Society Digital Library, all to October 2016; J-STAGE: Japan Science and Technology Information Aggregator, Electronic; and Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library (NCSTRL), both to November 2016; Computing Research Repository (CoRR) up to December 2016; and OT seeker; and ADEAR, both to February 2017. In addition, we searched Google Scholar and OpenSIGLE for grey literature.
We intended to review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clustered randomised trials with blinded assessment of outcomes that evaluated an electronic assistive device used with the single aim of supporting memory function in people diagnosed with dementia. The control interventions could either be 'care (or treatment) as usual' or non-technological psychosocial interventions (including interventions that use non-electronic assistive devices) also specifically aimed at supporting memory. Outcome measures included activities of daily living, level of dependency, clinical and care-related outcomes (for example admission to long-term care), perceived quality of life and well-being, and adverse events resulting from the use of AT; as well as the effects of AT on carers.
Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts identified by the search.
We identified no studies which met the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the current lack of high-quality evidence to determine whether AT is effective in supporting people with dementia to manage their memory problems.
对痴呆症护理中电子辅助技术的持续关注,源于迫切需要开发有用的方法来帮助在家中支持痴呆症患者。此外,电子设备的低成本和广泛可用性使得使用电子设备造福残疾人变得更加可行。旨在支持痴呆症患者的信息通信技术(ICT)设备通常被称为辅助技术(AT)或电子辅助技术(EAT)。在本综述中,我们使用AT指代电子辅助设备。已经开发出一系列AT设备来支持痴呆症患者及其护理人员管理日常活动并提高安全性,例如电子药盒、可视电话或移动追踪设备。许多设备都有商业销售。然而,这些设备的实用性和用户友好性往往评估不足。尽管存在对(电子)记忆辅助工具的综述,但缺乏对专注于AT对痴呆症患者记忆支持功效的研究的系统综述。这样的综述将指导痴呆症患者及其非正式和专业护理人员选择合适的AT设备。
主要目的评估AT对痴呆症患者记忆支持的功效,包括个人和工具性日常生活活动(ADL)的日常表现、依赖程度以及入住长期护理机构的情况。次要目的评估AT对以下方面的影响:用户(自主性、实用性和用户友好性、AT的采用情况);认知功能和神经精神症状;对非正式和正式护理的需求;感知生活质量;非正式护理人员的负担、自尊和能力感;正式护理人员的工作满意度、工作量和能力感;以及不良事件。
我们于2016年11月10日检索了ALOIS,即Cochrane痴呆与认知改善小组(CDCIG)的专业注册库。ALOIS由CDCIG的信息专家维护,包含痴呆症预防、痴呆症治疗和健康人群认知增强领域的研究。我们还检索了以下数据库列表,并根据需要调整检索策略:截至2016年5月的循证医学图书馆(CRD)数据库;计算机科学文献目录集;DBLP计算机科学文献目录;人机交互文献目录:人机交互资源;以及截至2016年6月的AgeInfo;PiCarta;Inspec;施普林格链接会议录;社会护理在线;以及截至2016年10月的IEEE计算机学会数字图书馆;J-STAGE:日本科学技术信息聚合器,电子版;以及截至2016年11月的网络计算机科学技术参考图书馆(NCSTRL);截至2016年12月的计算研究存储库(CoRR);以及OT搜索器;以及截至2017年2月的ADEAR。此外,我们在谷歌学术和OpenSIGLE中搜索了灰色文献。
我们打算综述随机对照试验(RCT)和整群随机试验,这些试验对结果进行盲法评估,评估使用电子辅助设备的唯一目的是支持被诊断患有痴呆症的人的记忆功能。对照干预措施可以是“常规护理(或治疗)”或同样专门旨在支持记忆的非技术心理社会干预措施(包括使用非电子辅助设备的干预措施)。结局指标包括日常生活活动、依赖程度、临床和护理相关结局(例如入住长期护理机构)、感知生活质量和幸福感,以及使用AT导致的不良事件;以及AT对护理人员的影响。
两位综述作者独立筛选检索到的所有标题和摘要。
我们未发现符合纳入标准的研究。
本综述突出了目前缺乏高质量证据来确定AT是否有效地支持痴呆症患者管理其记忆问题。