- Validation
- Anthony D. Harris ET AL. The Use and Interpretation of Quasi-Experimental Studies in Medical Informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006; 13:16-23. DOI 10.1197/jamia.M1749.
- Livingston, Gill, et al. “Dementia prevention, intervention, and care.” The Lancet (2017). http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/dementia2017
- Devices Accuracy
- Paul, S. S., et al. Validity of the Fitbit activity tracker for measuring steps in community-dwelling older adults. l. : BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 1(1), e000013, 2015. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000013.
- Baker, F., et al. Validation of a multi-sensory commercially available wristband in measuring sleep conditions against polysomnography. l. : Sleep Medicine, 40, e-21-e-22. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2017.11.057.
- Mantua, J., Gravel, N. and Spencer, R. M. C. Reliability of Sleep Measures from Four Personal Health Monitoring Devices Compared to Research-Based Actigraphy and Polysomnography. . Basel (Switzerland) : Sensors, 16(5), 2016. http://doi.org/10.3390/s16050646.
- Kaewkannate, K. and Kim, S. A comparison of wearable fitness devices.l. : BMC Publich Health, 16, 433, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3059-0.
- Empowering Medical Staff with Smart Glasses in Operating Rooms, Wearable Technology in Medicine and Health Care. Boillat, T. and Rivas, H. s.l. : Elsevier Press, 2018 (forthcoming)
- Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality in Wearable Computing: Meeting Challenge. Starner, T. s.l. : CRC Press , Second edi., 2015.
- Wearable Technology to Improve Education and Patient Outcomes in a Cardiology Fellowship Program-a Feasibility Study,. Vallurupalli, S., et al. 4, pp. 267-270, s.l. : Health Technology, 2013, Vol. 3.
- Vakaloudis, S. Elder and A. A technical evaluation of devices for smart glasses application. s.l.: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, pp. 98-103, 2015.
- Az önértékelés kérdőívjei
- Táplálás – referencia: SELF-MNA: Mini Nutritional Assessment – http://www.mna-elderly.com/forms/Self_MNA_English_Metric.pdf
- A fizikai aktivitás – referencia: IPAQ- International Physical Activity Questionnaire (2002)
- Alvás – referencia: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSI)
- Memóriahibák – referencia: SUNDERLAND, A., WATTS, K, BADDELEY, A D and HARRIS, J E. Subjective memory assessment and test performance in elderly adults. Journal of gerontology. May 1986. Vol. 41, no. 3, p. 376-84
- Egészségügyi életminőség: referencia EQ-5D Health Questionnaire
- Táplálás: referencia: Miguel Angel Martínez-González, Ana García Arellano , et al. A 14-Item Mediterranean Diet Assessment Tool and Obesity Indexes among High-Risk Subjects: The PREDIMED Trial. Published online 2012 Au. 14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043134
- Depresszió – referencia: Goldeberg Scale for Depression – http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/quizzes/goldbergdepression/
- Szociális támogatás – referencia: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) – http://gzimet.wixsite.com/mspss/about_us
- Megközelíthetőség
- AIGA. Typography and the Aging Eye: Typeface Legibility for Older Viewers with Vision Problems. The professional association for design. [Online]http://www.aiga.org/typography-and-the-aging-eye/.
- American Printing House for the Blind, Inc. APHont: A Font for Low Vision. [Online] http://www.aph.org/products/aphont/.
- Allan Haley – fonts.com. It’s About Legibility. [Online] https://www.fonts.com/content/learning/fontology/level-4/fine-typography/legibility.
- Rubinstein, R. Digital Typography. s.l. : Addison Wesley Longman.
- Alex Poole. Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? [Online] March 2012. http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/.
- Michael Bernard, Corrina Liao and Melisa Mills. Software Usability Research Laboratory – Wichita State University. Determining the Best Online Font for Older Adults. [Online] http://usabilitynews.org/determining-the-best-online-font-for-older-adults/.
- W3C. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. [Online] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.
- Techniques for WCAG 2.0. Ensuring that a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 exists between text (and images of text) and background behind the text. [Online]https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G18.