Best Practice Guidance
Human Interaction with Technology in Dementia

Recommendations

Evaluating the effectiveness of specific contemporary technology

The rapid growth of the technological landscape and related new services have the potential to improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health and social services and facilitate social participation and engagement in activities. But which technology is effective and how is this evaluated best? This section provides recommendations to evaluate the effectiveness of technology in daily life, meaningful activities and healthcare services as well as of technologies aimed to promote the Social Health of people with dementia. Examples of useful technologies in some of these areas are provided.
Technology for meaningful activities

Pay attention to psychological coping when evaluating the impact of technology

Guidance

When evaluating the impact of technology on the self-management of people with dementia, it is recommended to also evaluate how people succeed in coping psychologically and emotionally with the consequences of dementia in their daily life.

Explanation and examples

Measures to assess self-management in people with mild dementia evaluate how people compensate for their functional disabilities in daily life, but do not rate how people cope psychologically and emotionally with the consequences of dementia in their daily life (e.g. maintaining positive thinking and relationships), which is also a component of self-management. It is recommended to use additional instruments such as the Jalowiec Coping scale (1984) or the Qualidem (Ettema et al, 2007) for these aspects when assessing the impact of technology on self-management.

Type of evidence

Floriana Mangiaracina (INDUCT ESR8)

Systematic literature review

References

Mangiaracina F, Meiland F, Kerkhof Y, Orrell M, Graff M, Dröes RM. (2019). Self-management and social participation in community-dwelling people with mild dementia: a review of measuring instruments. International Psychogeriatrics, 31(9):1267-1285. doi.org/10.1017/S1041610218001709