↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Assistive technology for memory support in dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 blog
2 policy sources
32 X users
1 Facebook page
3 Wikipedia pages


90 Dimensions

Readers on

599 Mendeley
Assistive technology for memory support in dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009627.pub2
Pubmed ID

Henriëtte G Van der Roest, Jennifer Wenborn, Channah Pastink, Rose-Marie Dröes, Martin Orrell


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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 599 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 597 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 94 16%
Student > Bachelor 61 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 10%
Researcher 57 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 5%
Other 95 16%
Unknown 203 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 12%
Psychology 55 9%
Social Sciences 47 8%
Computer Science 19 3%
Other 92 15%
Unknown 221 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2021.
All research outputs
of 23,674,309 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 318,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,674,309 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,752 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.