Rehabilitation professionals’ perspectives on the selection and adaptation of applications for cognitive impairment following acquired brain injury
Megumi Kawasaki et al.
What the paper says
Applications for smartphones and tablets have been shown to support memory, attention, and executive function in individuals with cognitive impairments, promoting independence in daily living and employment. However, the rapid advancement and diversification of such applications have made selecting and adapting appropriate applications to individual user characteristics increasingly complex. This study aimed to clarify professionals' perspectives on the selection and adaptation of applications for individuals with cognitive impairments following acquired brain injury. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 rehabilitation professionals involved in providing assistive technology devices. Commonly used applications included those for schedule management, route guidance, lifestyle management, and communication support. Suitability was judged based on pre-injury device use and cognitive characteristics, particularly language, memory, attention, and visuospatial functions. Usability challenges, such as excessive functionality, deep hierarchical structures, and poor visibility, highlighted the importance of simple and customizable design. Environmental factors, including professionals' knowledge, ongoing support, and accessibility, were also reported to affect long-term implementation. These findings suggest the relevance of a multidimensional evaluation integrating user characteristics, application functions, and environmental contexts. Strengthening evidence on application efficacy, clarifying adaptation criteria, promoting user-centered design, and developing structured training and support systems for both users and professionals may be important for effective and sustainable implementation of mobile technologies.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.