Designing User Interfaces of Assistive Technology for People Living With Dementia
A Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 23039617 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ruby Lipson‐Smith (0000-0002-1702-8144), Sahba Monzaviyan (0009-0009-1422-472X), Mina Aghaei (0000-0002-7619-0002), Madeleine Radnan (0000-0003-3836-1162), Riley Nicholson (0000-0002-5487-7858), Ruth Brookman (0000-0002-6060-1989), Celia B Harris (0000-0001-5261-4205) |
| Editors | Pinaki Chakraborty (0000-0002-2010-8022) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 2025 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2025-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2578-1863 • E-ISSN: 2578-1863 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1155/hbe2/3850397 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 91 |
Assistive technologies may have an important role in fulfilling unmet needs and increasing quality of life for people living with dementia. The type and design of user interfaces (e.g. touchscreen and voice activation) may impact how people with dementia use these technologies. We aimed to understand which types of user interfaces have been developed for this population, how interfaces are chosen, how their effectiveness is tested and what recommendations there are for optimizing interface design for people with dementia. This systematic scoping review summarized findings from 87 journal articles. Two‐thirds of included studies incorporated codesign. Very few (14%) experimentally tested the effectiveness of a user interface, and many lacked ecological validity (52%). Common recommendations for user interface design included tailoring the interface to the user, providing multiple modalities, and incorporating principles of universal design. Training users on how to interface with the technology may not be beneficial for devices that are intended to be used entirely independently by a person living with dementia. Instead, designers should focus on harnessing retained or existing skills so that interaction is intuitive. More research is needed that directly compares different interface options to each other to gain evidence of what is most useful for people with dementia, as well as technology development that is deeply and meaningfully grounded in the lived experiences, values, preferences and priorities of people living with dementia.
Are you really doing ‘codesign’? Critical reflections when working with vulnerable populations
Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050
Undertaking a scoping review
Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach
Augmented assistive technology
The impact of assistive software application to facilitate people with dementia through participatory research
“Bring me sunshine, bring me (physical) strength”
Unsung helpers
Digital reminiscence app co‐created by people living with dementia and carers
Introducing and Familiarising Older Adults Living with Dementia and Their Caregivers to Virtual Reality
If telecare is the answer, what was the question? Storylines, tensions and the unintended consequences of technology-supported care
Personalisation, customisation and bricolage
Remote care technologies, older people and the social care crisis in the United Kingdom
Context-Enhanced Human-Robot Interaction
A Long-Term Autonomous Robot at a Care Hospital
A Conversational Robot for Older Adults with Alzheimer’s Disease
Affective and Engagement Issues in the Conception and Assessment of a Robot-Assisted Psychomotor Therapy for Persons with Dementia
Scoping studies
It's no good but at least I've always got it round my neck
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |