SynthesisJMIR aging2026
Identifying Facilitators and Obstacles in Piloting Dementia Initiatives Within a Living Lab Approach: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JMIR aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dementia affects more than 55 million people worldwide, and its progressive cognitive decline creates substantial challenges for intervention testing and real-world implementation. Living Labs (LLs) have become increasingly relevant for piloting interventions in dementia care, offering real-world environments for cocreation and iterative testing. However, operational, ethical, and governance challenges can hinder the effective implementation of dementia-focused initiatives. Objective: This study aimed to identify and synthesize the facilitators and challenges encountered when piloting dementia-related initiatives within an LL approach. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCOhost from database inception to January 31, 2024. Studies were eligible if they reported the piloting, implementation, or evaluation of dementia-related initiatives in an LL context. A narrative synthesis was performed using content analysis for initial coding and thematic analysis for theme development. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Results: The 15 included studies were mostly conducted in European countries. Two major themes emerged, namely (1) organizational and operational issues and (2) ethical and legal considerations. Within these, 4 key operational subthemes were identified: engaging people living with dementia (end users), research design and evaluation methods, co-design and testing phases, and LL governance. Ethical and legal considerations covered informed consent procedures and regulatory aspects. Across studies, the most frequently reported facilitators involved familiar environments, stakeholder collaboration, iterative evaluation, and flexible co-design processes. Barriers commonly included fluctuating cognitive symptoms, limited digital literacy, inconsistent stakeholder engagement, time and resource constraints, and fragmented regulatory guidance. Conclusions: Piloting dementia initiatives in LLs requires methodological adaptability, strong governance structures, and ethical procedures tailored to cognitive impairment. These findings provide actionable guidance for researchers, practitioners, industry partners, and policymakers seeking to develop sustainable, user-centered LLs that support innovation in dementia care.
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.