Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T08:47:18.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Smartphones have the Potential to Support Cognition and Independence Following Stroke?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2017

Dana Wong ,
Qiao Jerry Wang ,
Renerus Stolwyk  and
Jennie Ponsford
Dana Wong*
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences and Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Monash-Epworth Rehabilitation Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Qiao Jerry Wang
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences and Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Renerus Stolwyk
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences and Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Monash-Epworth Rehabilitation Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Jennie Ponsford
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences and Monash Institute of Cognitive and Clinical Neurosciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Monash-Epworth Rehabilitation Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Dana Wong, School of Psychological Sciences, 18 Innovation Walk, Monash University Clayton VIC 3800, Australia. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Management of cognitive difficulties is a significant unmet need for individuals with stroke. Incorporating multiple functions, including memory aids and communication tools, smartphones have potential to improve everyday cognitive function and independence in daily activities post-stroke. We aimed to investigate patterns of smartphone use, facilitators and barriers to use, and relationships between smartphone use and daily functioning. Twenty-nine participants with stroke and 29 comparison participants with no history of neurological conditions completed measures of smartphone use, objective and subjective cognitive function, mood and community integration. The majority of participants used smartphones, though the proportion of users was lower in the stroke group (62%) than the comparison group (86%). Older participants were less likely to use smartphones. Using apps that support memory was a main benefit of smartphone use post-stroke. In the stroke group, frequent users of memory apps had significantly fewer motor symptoms (d = 1.20), and higher productivity (d = 0.84). Stroke survivors identified difficulty learning how to use smartphones, but only one participant had assistance with this from a clinician. These results suggest that smartphones have potential as assistive technology post-stroke, however, support in using them is essential, particularly for older individuals with motor dysfunction.

Keywords

smartphonesstrokeassistive technologycognitive rehabilitationmemory aids
Type
Articles
Information
Brain Impairment , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , December 2017 , pp. 310 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrew, N.E., Kilkenny, M., Naylor, R., Purvis, T., Lalor, E., Moloczij, N., . . . National Stroke, F. (2014). Understanding long-term unmet needs in Australian survivors of stroke. International Journal of Stroke, 9 (Suppl. A100), 106–112. doi: 10.1111/ijs.12325.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). Retrieved October 1, 2016, from http://www.abs.gov.au.Google Scholar
Australian Communications and Media Authority (2013). Communications report 2012–13. Retrieved Oct 1st, 2014, from http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/Library/Corporate-library/Corporate-publications/communications-report-2012-13.Google Scholar
Barker-Collo, S., Krishnamurthi, R., Feigin, V., Jones, A., Theadom, A., Barber, P.A., . . . Bennett, D. (2016). Neuropsychological outcome and its predictors across the first year after ischaemic stroke. Brain Impairment, 17 (2), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boosman, H., van Heugten, C.M., Winkens, I., Heijnen, V.A., & Visser-Meily, J.M.A. (2014). Awareness of memory functioning in patients with stroke who have a good functional outcome. Brain Injury, 28 (7), 959–964.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, C., Worrall, L., Copland, D., Power, E., & Rodriguez, A.D. (2016). The development and accuracy testing of CommFitTM, an iPhone application for individuals with aphasia. Aphasiology, 30 (2–3), 320–338.Google Scholar
Broadbent, D.E., Cooper, P.F., Fitzgerald, P., & Parkes, K.R. (1982). The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21 (1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Charters, E., Gillett, L., & Simpson, G.K. (2015). Efficacy of electronic portable assistive devices for people with acquired brain injury: A systematic review. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 25 (1), 82–121. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2014.942672.Google Scholar
Cumming, T.B., Bernhardt, J., & Linden, T. (2011). The montreal cognitive assessment short cognitive evaluation in a large stroke trial. Stroke, 42 (9), 2642– 2644.Google Scholar
Dahm, J., Wong, D., & Ponsford, J. (2013). Validity of the depression anxiety stress scales in assessing depression and anxiety following traumatic brain injury. Journal of Affective Disorders, 151 (1), 392–396. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.06.011 Google Scholar
Das Nair, R., Martin, K.-J., & Sinclair, E.J. (2015). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on perceptions of people with long-term neurological conditions about group-based memory rehabilitation. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 25 (4), 479–502. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2014.971820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Joode, E.A., van Boxtel, M.P., Verhey, F.R., & van Heugten, C.M. (2012). Use of assistive technology in cognitive rehabilitation: exploratory studies of the opinions and expectations of healthcare professionals and potential users. Brain Injury, 26 (10), 1257–1266.Google Scholar
Dowds, M.M., Lee, P.H., Sheer, J.B., O'Neil-Pirozzi, T.M., Xenopoulos-Oddsson, A., Goldstein, R., . . .Glenn, M.B. (2011). Electronic reminding technology following traumatic brain injury: Effects on timely task completion. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 26 (5), 339–347. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3181f2bf1d.Google Scholar
Ferguson, S., Friedland, D., & Woodberry, E. (2015). Smartphone technology: gentle reminders of everyday tasks for those with prospective memory difficulties post-brain injury. Brain Injury, 29 (5), 583–591. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2014.1002109.Google Scholar
Freitas, S., Simões, M.R., Alves, L., Vicente, M., & Santana, I. (2012). Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA): Validation study for vascular dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18 (06), 1031–1040.Google Scholar
Gillespie, A., Best, C., & O'Neill, B. (2012). Cognitive function and assistive technology for cognition: A systematic review. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18 (1), 1–19. doi: 10.1017/S1355617711001548.Google Scholar
Gregor, P., Newell, A.F., & Zajicek, M. (2002). Designing for dynamic diversity: Interfaces for older people. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the fifth international ACM conference on Assistive technologies. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=638249.638277.Google Scholar
Hart, T., Buchhofer, R., & Vaccaro, M. (2004). Portable electronic devices as memory and organizational aids after traumatic brain injury: A consumer survey study. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 19 (5), 351–365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jamieson, M., Cullen, B., McGee-Lennon, M., Brewster, S., & Evans, J. (2015). Technological memory aid use by people with acquired brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2015.1103760. Published online 28 October, 2015.Google Scholar
Jamieson, M., Cullen, B., McGee-Lennon, M., Brewster, S., & Evans, J.J. (2014). The efficacy of cognitive prosthetic technology for people with memory impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24 (3–4), 419–444. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2013.825632.Google Scholar
Jokinen, H., Melkas, S., Ylikoski, R., Pohjasvaara, T., Kaste, M., Erkinjuntti, T., & Hietanen, M. (2015). Post-stroke cognitive impairment is common even after successful clinical recovery. European Journal of Neurology, 22 (9), 1288–1294. doi: 10.1111/ene.12743.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, E., & Borell, L. (2012). Computer-based assistive technology and changes in daily living after stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology, 7 (5), 364–371. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2011.638036.Google Scholar
Lovibond, S.H., & Lovibond, P.F. (2004). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.). Sydney: Psychology Foundation Monograph.Google Scholar
Nasreddine, Z.S., Phillips, N.A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., . . . Chertkow, H. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53 (4), 695– 699.Google Scholar
National Stroke Foundation (2010). Clinical guidelines for management 2010. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Pollock, A., St George, B., Fenton, M., & Firkins, L. (2012). Top ten research priorities relating to life after stroke. Lancet Neurology, 11 (3), 209. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70029-7.Google Scholar
Strauss, E., Sherman, E.M.S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms and commentary (3rd ed., pp. 59–60). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Svoboda, E., Richards, B., Leach, L., & Mertens, V. (2012). PDA and smartphone use by individuals with moderate-to-severe memory impairment: application of a theory-driven training programme. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 22 (3), 408–427. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2011.652498.Google Scholar
Taylor, G.H., & Broomfield, N.M. (2013). Cognitive assessment and rehabilitation pathway for stroke (CARPS). Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 20 (3), 270–282. doi: 10.1310/tsr2003-270.Google Scholar
Thilarajah, S., Clark, R.A., & Williams, G. (2016). Wearable sensors and Mobile Health (mHealth) technologies to assess and promote physical activity in stroke:A narrative review. Brain Impairment, 17 (1), 34–42.Google Scholar
Willer, B., Rosenthal, M., Kreutzer, J.S., Gordon, W.A., & Rempel, R. (1993). Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8 (2), 75–87. doi: 10.1097/00001199-199308020-00009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Gracey, F., Evans, J., & Bateman, A. (2009). Neuropsychological rehabilitation: Theory, models, therapy and outcome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, D., Dahm, J., & Ponsford, J. (2013). Factor structure of the depression anxiety stress scales in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 27 (12), 1377–1382. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2013.823662.Google Scholar
Wong, D., Sinclair, K., Seabrook, E., McKay, A., & Ponsford, J. (2016). Smartphones as assistive technology following traumatic brain injury: A preliminary study of what helps and what hinders. Disability and Rehabilitation. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1226434. Published online 17 October, 2016.Google ScholarPubMed
Zajicek, M., & Morrissey, W. (2001). Interface design for older adults. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF workshop on Universal accessibility of ubiquitous computing: providing for the elderly. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=564526.564543 Google Scholar