ArticleInternet interventions2025
Participatory methods in designing digital health interventions for informal caregivers of people with dementia. A systematic review.
Article in Internet interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- User-Centered Design for Digital Patient-Navigation Tools in Oncology: Scoping Review.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Factors Associated With the Use of Digital Health and Well-Being Resources in Non-Memory-Led Dementias: Quantitative Survey Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Digital Support for Family Caregivers: Potential and Challenges of a Hypothetical AI Care Companion.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Consensus-based reporting guideline for participatory development and evaluation of digital health interventions.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Reframing Person-Centered Fundamental Care in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Posthumanization: A Theory-Informed Narrative Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Designing trustworthy, low-threshold care coordination: co-creating a hybrid CareCompass with rural informal caregivers.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The growing use of technology in healthcare has contributed to the development of digital interventions for informal caregivers of people living with dementia. However, the marked heterogeneity of interventions poses challenges in evaluating their effectiveness. We conducted a review to delineate the distinctive features and development of the interventions, with focus on participatory methods. Methods: We searched the following databases: Cochrane; Cinahl; Pubmed; Psychinfo; Scopus; Web of Knowledge, and IEEE, and screened and selected studies based on titles, abstracts and full texts. We used standardized procedure to abstract and synthetize relevant data of primary studies, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess their quality. Results: Of 3136 records, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were web-based interventions, with multiple components and interactive features. The design and development of eight interventions employed participatory methods with large variations in the underlying framework and application. Conclusions: This review sheds light on the design and development of digital interventions for dementia caregivers. The limited and heterogeneous use of participatory methods, along with inadequate reporting, hinders a clear understanding of intervention efficacy and implementation. Formal standardization of participatory action research methods is necessary to improve the design, development, and evaluation of digital interventions for caregivers of people with dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.