There is increasing interest in the use of technology to support social health in dementia. The primary objective of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence of effectiveness of digital technologies used by people with dementia to improve self-management and social participation. Records published from 1 January 2007 to 9 April 2020 were identified from Pubmed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Controlled interventional studies evaluating interventions based on any digital technology were included if: primary users of the technology had dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI); and the study reported outcomes relevant to self-management or social participation. Studies were clustered by population, intervention, and outcomes, and narrative synthesis was undertaken. Of 1394 records identified, nine met the inclusion criteria: two were deemed to be of poor methodological quality, six of fair quality, and one of good quality. Three clusters of technologies were identified: virtual reality, wearables, and software applications. We identified weak evidence that digital technologies may provide less benefit to people with dementia than people with MCI. Future research should address the methodological limitations and narrow scope of existing work. In the absence of strong evidence, clinicians and caregivers must use their judgement to appraise available technologies on a case-by-case basis.

Objective: There is growing evidence that people with mild dementia can benefit from using tablets and apps. Due to their cognitive decline, people with dementia need support in learning how to use these devices. The objective of this review was to identify which training interventions work best to help people with mild dementia (re)learn how to use technologies, including handheld touchscreen devices. Because the uptake of these devices in people with dementia is quite new, training interventions for the use of other technologies were also included, such as technologies assisting people in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL). Design: An electronic search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, APA PsycInfo (EBSCO), and CINAHL (EBSCO). Themes discussed include the learning effects; training method (e.g. errorful (EF) and errorless (EL) learning); training intensity and setting; technology task type; dementia type and severity; and study design and outcome measures. Results: In total, 16 studies were included. All studies reported positive learning effects and improved task performance in people with dementia, regardless of dementia severity, training intensity, setting, and the method used. Although the EL training method was successful more often than the EF training method, it would be inappropriate to conclude that the EL method is more effective, because the majority of studies only investigated EL training interventions with (multiple) single-case study designs. Conclusion: Future research should consider using more robust study designs, such as RCTs, to evaluate the effectiveness of training interventions for (re)learning technology-orientated tasks, including operating handheld touchscreen devices.

Background: The depressed population needs to be treated and they do not have access to evidenced-based psychological practices (EBPPs). The consequences lead to significant daily impairments and huge economical costs. A large amount of research has focused on the demand for a more extensive use of EBPPs. However, despite these practices being essential to the mental health system, EBPPs are poorly applied in clinical settings. This situation has led to the development of Implementation Research (IR), a scientific field that aims to address the challenge of translation and identify the factors involved in the implementation process. Several implementation studies have been carried out in the field of health. However, the evidence from implementation studies of psychological treatments addressing depression has not yet been summarized. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review to assess implementation studies that use EBPPs to address depression. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, including implementation studies that applied EBPPs to address depressive disorders. The following databases were used: PubMed, Embase, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers revised the studies to determine whether the eligibility criteria were met. Results: A total of 8797 studies were identified through database searches. After removing duplicates, a total of 3757 studies were screened based on titles and abstracts. Finally, 127 full-text articles were reviewed, yielding 31 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: This review offers valuable insights into the current state of IR in the implementation of EBPPs for treating depressive disorders. It underlines the necessity for a standardized nomenclature for study designs within the realm of IR and emphasizes the potential of hybrid efficacy–implementation studies to help close the gap between research and clinical practice. Despite the challenges encountered, this review points to a positive outlook for the use of IR in clinical psychology. A gradual adoption of IR is likely to strengthen its role in psychology and support the development of more effective strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in clinical settings.