Use of smartphones and tablets after acquired brain injury to support cognition

References

• Cicerone KD, Goldin Y, Ganci K, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: systematic review of the literature from 2009 through 2014. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(8):1515–1533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bier N, Sablier J, Briand C, et al. Special issue on technology and neuropsychological rehabilitation: overview and reflections on ways to conduct future studies and support clinical practice. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018;28(5):864–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bos HR, Babbage DR, Leathem JM. Efficacy of memory aids after traumatic brain injury: a single case series. NeuroRehabilitation. 2017;41(2):463–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Joode EA, Van Heugten CM, Verhey FR, et al. Effectiveness of an electronic cognitive aid in patients with acquired brain injury: a multicentre randomised parallel-group study. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2013;23(1):133–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svoboda E, Richards B, Leach L, et al. PDA and smartphone use by individuals with moderate-to-severe memory impairment: application of a theory-driven training programme. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2012;22(3):408–427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evald L. Prospective memory rehabilitation using smartphones in patients with TBI. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(19):2250–2259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans JJ, Wilson BA, Needham P, et al. Who makes good use of memory aids? Results of a survey of people with acquired brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2003;9(6):925–935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson M, Cullen B, McGee-Lennon M, et al. Technological memory aid use by people with acquired brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2017;27(6):919–936.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charters E, Gillett L, Simpson GK. Efficacy of electronic portable assistive devices for people with acquired brain injury: a systematic review. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2015;25(1):82–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Joode E, van Heugten C, Verhey F, et al. Efficacy and usability of assistive technology for patients with cognitive deficits: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24(8):701–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillespie A, Best C, O'Neill B. Cognitive function and assistive technology for cognition: a systematic review. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2012;18(1):1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamieson M, Cullen B, McGee-Lennon M, et al. The efficacy of cognitive prosthetic technology for people with memory impairments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2014;24(3-4):419–444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu Y, Brown P, Harniss M, et al. Cognitive support technologies for people with TBI: current usage and challenges experienced. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(4):279–285.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Statistics Canada. The internet and digital technology. 2017. www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2017032-eng.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Hart T, Buchhofer R, Vaccaro M. Portable electronic devices as memory and organizational aids after traumatic brain injury: a consumer survey study. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004;19(5):351–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong D, Sinclair K, Seabrook E, et al. Smartphones as assistive technology following traumatic brain injury: a preliminary study of what helps and what hinders. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(23):2387–2394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong D, Wang QJ, Stolwyk R, et al. Do smartphones have the potential to support cognition and independence following stroke? Brain Impair. 2017;18(3):310–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Joode EA, van Boxtel MP, Verhey FR, et al. Use of assistive technology in cognitive rehabilitation: exploratory studies of the opinions and expectations of healthcare professionals and potential users. Brain Inj. 2012;26(10):1257–1266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groussard PY, Pigot H, Giroux S. From conception to evaluation of mobile services for people with head injury: a participatory design perspective. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018;28(5):667–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svoboda E, Richards B. Compensating for anterograde amnesia: a new training method that capitalizes on emerging smartphone technologies. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009;15(4):629–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt J, Spencer M, Folstein M. The telephone interview for cognitive status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 1988;1(2):111–117.
   Google Scholar
• Vercambre MN, Cuvelier H, Gayon YA, et al. Validation study of a french version of the modified telephone interview for cognitive status (F-TICS-m) in elderly women. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;25(11):1142–1149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Provencher V, Sirois MJ, Ouellet MC, et al. Decline in activities of daily living after a visit to a Canadian emergency department for minor injuries in independent older adults: are frail older adults with cognitive impairment at greater risk? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(5):860–868.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troyer AK, Rich JB. Psychometric properties of a new metamemory questionnaire for older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2002;57(1):P19–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troyer AK, Rich JB. Multifactorial memory questionnaire: professional manual. Toronto (ON): Baycrest; 2018. Available from: www.baycrest.org/mmq
   Google Scholar
• Fort I, Adoul L, Holl D, et al. Psychometric properties of the french version of the multifactorial memory questionnaire for adults and the elderly. Can J Aging. 2004;23(4):347–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson S, Friedland D, Woodberry E. Smartphone technology: gentle reminders of everyday tasks for those with prospective memory difficulties post-brain injury. Brain Inj. 2015;29(5):583–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess P, Alderman N, Wilson B, et al. The dysexecutive questionnaire. Behavioural assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome. Bury St Edmunds (UK): Thames Valley Test Company; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Azouvi P, Vallat-Azouvi C, Millox V, et al. Ecological validity of the dysexecutive questionnaire: results from the PariS-TBI study. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2015;25(6):864–878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodenburg S, Dopslaff N. The dysexecutive questionnaire advanced: item and test score characteristics, 4-factor solution, and severity classification. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2008;196(1):75–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellebrekers D, Winkens I, Kruiper S, et al. Psychometric properties of the awareness questionnaire, patient competency rating scale and dysexecutive questionnaire in patients with acquired brain injury. Brain Inj. 2017;31(11):1469–1478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allain P, Roy A, Kefi Z, et al. Fonctions exécutives et traumatisme crânien sévère: Évaluation à l’aide de la behavioural assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome. Rev Neuropsychol. 2004;14(3):285–323.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H. Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). TAD. 2002;14(3):107–111.
   Google Scholar
• Jutai J, Day H, Coulson S. Developing a short form of the psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS). RESNA Annual Conference; 2007; Phoenix (AZ).
   Google Scholar
• Demers L, Monette M, Descent M, et al. The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS): translation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a Canadian-French version. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(6):583–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien RM. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant. 2007;41(5):673–690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christopher E, Alsaffarini KW, Jamjoom AA. Mobile health for traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of the literature and mobile application market. Cureus. 2019;11(7):e5120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwan V, Bihelek N, Anderson V, et al. A review of smartphone applications for persons with traumatic brain injury: what is available and what is the evidence? J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2019;34(2):E45–E51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramirez-Hernandez D, Stolwyk RJ, Chapman J, et al. The experience and acceptability of smartphone reminder app training for people with acquired brain injury: a mixed methods study. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2022;32(7):1263–1290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohlberg MM, Mateer CA. Training use of compensatory memory books: a three stage behavioral approach. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1989;11(6):871–891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbeault H, Langlois F, Bocti C, et al. Can people with Alzheimer’s disease improve their day-to-day functioning with a tablet computer? Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2018;28(5):779–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramirez-Hernandez D, Wong D, Ownsworth T, et al. Which training methods are effective for learning new smartphone memory apps after acquired brain injury? A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing trial and error, systematic instruction and error-based learning. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2023;33(1):139–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faieta J, Hand BN, Schmeler M, et al. Health app review tool: matching mobile apps to Alzheimer’s populations (HART match). J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2020;7:2055668320938604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar