Development of the Ubiquitous Spaced Retrieval-Based Memory Advancement and Rehabilitation Training Program

Han, Ji Won; Oh, Kyusoo; Yoo, Sooyoung; Kim, Eunhye; Ahn, Ki Hwan; Son, Yeon Joo; Kim, Tae Hui; Kyung, Yeon; Kim, Ki Woong

doi:10.4306/pi.2014.11.1.52

Cited by 29 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the purposes of our analysis, we considered each article as separate. We found 2 articles that evaluated the ActiveLifestyle app [25,26], AsthmaCare [27,28], EncephalApp [29,30], iMigraine [31,32], iStepLog [33,34], the Mayo Clinic app [35,36], Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test [37,38], My Meal Mate [39,40], Ready~Steady [41,42], a cognitive stimulation app for alcoholics [43,44], USMART [45,46], ClinTouch [47,48], and a food addiction intervention [49,50]. We found 3 articles that evaluated a mobile application in the Women with Epilepsy: Pregnancy Outcomes and Deliveries (WEPOD) study [51-53] and 3 that evaluated the SaGAS 20/10 app [54,55].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Facing Mobile Apps to Treat High-Need, High-Cost Populations: A Scoping Review

Singh¹,

Drouin²,

Newmark³

et al. 2016

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSelf-management is essential to caring for high-need, high-cost (HNHC) populations. Advances in mobile phone technology coupled with increased availability and adoption of health-focused mobile apps have made self-management more achievable, but the extent and quality of the literature supporting their use is not well defined.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review was to assess the breadth, quality, bias, and types of outcomes measured in the literature supporting the use of apps targeting HNHC populations.MethodsData sources included articles in PubMed and MEDLINE (National Center for Biotechnology Information), EMBASE (Elsevier), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (EBSCO), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), and the NTIS (National Technical Information Service) Bibliographic Database (EBSCO) published since 2008. We selected studies involving use of patient-facing iOS or Android mobile health apps. Extraction was performed by 1 reviewer; 40 randomly selected articles were evaluated by 2 reviewers to assess agreement.ResultsOur final analysis included 175 studies. The populations most commonly targeted by apps included patients with obesity, physical handicaps, diabetes, older age, and dementia. Only 30.3% (53/175) of the apps studied in the reviewed literature were identifiable and available to the public through app stores. Many of the studies were cross-sectional analyses (42.9%, 75/175), small (median number of participants=31, interquartile range 11.0-207.2, maximum 11,690), or performed by an app’s developers (61.1%, 107/175). Of the 175 studies, only 36 (20.6%, 36/175) studies evaluated a clinical outcome.ConclusionsMost apps described in the literature could not be located on the iOS or Android app stores, and existing research does not robustly evaluate the potential of mobile apps. Whereas apps may be useful in patients with chronic conditions, data do not support this yet. Although we had 2-3 reviewers to screen and assess abstract eligibility, only 1 reviewer abstracted the data. This is one limitation of our study. With respect to the 40 articles (22.9%, 40/175) that were assigned to 2 reviewers (of which 3 articles were excluded), inter-rater agreement was significant on the majority of items (17 of 30) but fair-to-moderate on others.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Facing Mobile Apps to Treat High-Need, High-Cost Populations: A Scoping Review

Singh¹,

Drouin²,

Newmark³

et al. 2016

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the phase II participants, 460 subjects from 4 districts (2 rural and 2 urban districts) were followed up as a part of the Korean Longitudinal Study on Cognitive Aging and Dementia (KLOSCAD) [13]. In total, 359 subjects did not meet the criteria for dementia at baseline (i.e., NaSDEK phase II).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment in Korean Elderly

Bae

Kim

Han

et al. 2014

Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Knowledge of incidence rates and risk factors is essential for the development of strategies to treat patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: A subpopulation of the Nationwide Survey on Dementia Epidemiology (460 Korean subjects aged ≥65 years from 2 rural and 2 urban districts) was followed up for 3.5 years. The age-specific incidence was estimated and risk factors were identified. Results: The age-standardized incidence of AD and MCI was 7.9 and 28.1 cases per 1,000 person-years, respectively. MCI was associated with a 6-fold increased risk of AD. Depression was a risk factor for AD with MCI. Age, lack of formal education, illiteracy, rural residence, and marital status were associated with the risk of AD. Conclusion: Strategies to control modifiable risk factors should be implemented to decrease the incidence of AD. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

show abstract

“…In total, 49 studies were retrieved, 11,25-72 comprising 16 reviews 11,25,29,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]42,51,60,64 and 33 individual studies. [26][27][28]30,40,41,[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][61][62][63][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] Key findings are presented below; more detailed evidence tables are provided in Appendix 1.…”

Section: Objective No 1: Efficacy Of Apps On Chronic Disease Self-mamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a review of 24 studies, 64 two RCTs 65,66 and one controlled trial 67 of apps focused on cognitive training showed improved cognition, whereas one RCT did not. 68 Three other RCTs, one of serious games coupled with cognitive training, 69 one with a multicomponent program 70 and another of engagement, 71 showed no effects on various outcomes.…”

Section: Cognitive Impairmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Going digital: a narrative overview of the effects, quality and utility of mobile apps in chronic disease self-management

Scott

Scuffham²,

Gupta

et al. 2020

Aust. Health Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Smartphone health applications (apps) are being increasingly used to assist patients in chronic disease self-management. The effects of such apps on patient outcomes are uncertain, as are design features that maximise usability and efficacy, and the best methods for evaluating app quality and utility. Methods In assessing efficacy, PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews (and single studies if no systematic review was available) published between January 2007 and January 2018 using search terms (and synonyms) of ‘smartphone’ and ‘mobile applications’, and terms for each of 11 chronic diseases: asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), diabetes, chronic pain, serious mental health disorders, alcohol and substance addiction, heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, cancer, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease (CKD). With regard to design features and evaluation methods, additional reviews were sought using search terms ‘design’, ‘quality,’ ‘usability’, ‘functionality,’ ‘adherence’, ‘evaluation’ and related synonyms. Results Of 13 reviews and six single studies assessing efficacy, consistent evidence of benefit was seen only with apps for diabetes, as measured by decreased glycosylated haemoglobin levels (HbA1c). Some, but not all, studies showed benefit in asthma, low back pain, alcohol addiction, heart failure, ischaemic heart disease and cancer. There was no evidence of benefit in COPD, cognitive impairment or CKD. In all studies, benefits were clinically marginal and none related to morbid events or hospitalisation. Twelve design features were identified as enhancing usability. An evaluation framework comprising 32 items was formulated. Conclusion Evidence of clinical benefit of most available apps is very limited. Design features that enhance usability and maximise efficacy were identified. A provisional ‘first-pass’ evaluation framework is proposed that can help decide which apps should be endorsed by government agencies following more detailed technical assessments and which could then be recommended with confidence by clinicians to their patients. What is known about the topic? Smartphone health apps have attracted considerable interest from patients and health managers as a means of promoting more effective self-management of chronic diseases, which leads to better health outcomes. However, most commercially available apps have never been evaluated for benefits or harms in clinical trials, and there are currently no agreed quality criteria, standards or regulations to ensure health apps are user-friendly, accurate in content, evidence based or efficacious. What does this paper add? This paper presents a comprehensive review of evidence relating to the efficacy, usability and evaluation of apps for 11 common diseases aimed at assisting patients in self-management. Consistent evidence of benefit was only seen for diabetes apps; there was absent or conflicting evidence of benefit for apps for the remaining 10 diseases. Benefits that were detected were of marginal clinical importance, with no reporting of hard clinical end-points, such as mortality or hospitalisations. Only a minority of studies explicitly reported using behaviour change theories to underpin the app intervention. Many apps lacked design features that the literature identified as enhancing usability and potential to confer benefit. Despite a plethora of published evaluation tools, there is no universal framework that covers all relevant clinical and technical attributes. An inclusive list of evaluation criteria is proposed that may overcome this shortcoming. What are the implications for practitioners? The number of smartphone apps will continue to grow, as will the appetite for patients and clinicians to use them in chronic disease self-management. However, the evidence to date of clinical benefit of most apps already available is very limited. Design features that enhance usability and clinical efficacy need to be considered. In making decisions about which apps should be endorsed by government agencies and recommended with confidence by clinicians to their patients, a comprehensive but workable evaluation framework needs to be used by bodies assuming the roles of setting and applying standards.

show abstract

Development of the Ubiquitous Spaced Retrieval-Based Memory Advancement and Rehabilitation Training Program

Cited by 29 publications

References 25 publications

Patient-Facing Mobile Apps to Treat High-Need, High-Cost Populations: A Scoping Review

Patient-Facing Mobile Apps to Treat High-Need, High-Cost Populations: A Scoping Review

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment in Korean Elderly

Going digital: a narrative overview of the effects, quality and utility of mobile apps in chronic disease self-management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About