PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 21, 20240 citations

Engaging older adults with cognitive impairment in digital health technologies: A systematic scoping review protocol (Preprint)

View Full Paper
SDSié Mathieu Aymar Romaric DaMSMaxime SassevilleMHM. Hardy

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

BACKGROUND In Canada, individuals aged 65 and older currently represent 19% of the population, a proportion expected to reach 25% by 2030. This aging population is accompanied by an increase in cognitive disorders, notably Alzheimer’s disease, whose prevalence doubles every five years after the age of 65. The implications of this trend are significant, both for individuals and for society. To address these challenges, it is crucial to promote cognitive health through physical activity, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation, efforts that can be supported by digital health technologies. However, the engagement of older adults with cognitive disorders in utilizing these technologies is essential to fully reap their benefits. This study aims to understand how this engagement is defined and measured, as well as to identify the factors influencing it and its impact on digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to describe how cognitively impaired older adults' engagement with digital health technologies is conceptualized and assessed, and how this engagement relates to the effectiveness of digital health interventions. METHODS This knowledge synthesis will employ the scoping review method outlined by Arksey and O'Malley, further developed by Levac et al. A systematic approach following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and the PRISMA-ScR checklist will ensure reproducibility. A search strategy, created with a medical information specialist from Université Laval, will be applied to Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar, without time restrictions. Two reviewers will independently select titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data extraction will be conducted by the research team and validated by a senior member, resolving disagreements by consensus or a third party if necessary. Descriptive analyses will be done using concept mapping software (Xmind) for a narrative synthesis of the results by themes related to the research questions. RESULTS The development of the search strategy and the completion of the selection phases of the review was completed in July 2024. Data extraction and analysis will begin in August 2024, and results are expected to be available in October 2024. CONCLUSIONS The results of this systematic scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the different conceptualizations of engagement with digital health technologies in older people with cognitive impairment, as well as the tools to measure it. This will contribute to a better understanding of the relationships between levels of engagement and the effectiveness of digital health interventions in older people living with neurocognitive disorders.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Da et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e5b89bb6db643587550f82https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.65515
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation2018 · 43,618 citations
  2. 2The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews2021 · 104,831 citations
  3. 3A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis on digital health interventions for people living with dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment2022 · 67 citations
  4. 4The Effectiveness of e-Health Solutions for Aging With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review2020 · 53 citations
  5. 5eHealth for Patient Engagement: A Systematic Review2016 · 454 citations