Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A User-Centered Design Approach for a Screening App for People With Cognitive Impairment (digiDEM-SCREEN): Development and Usability Study
Zeiler M, Dietzel N, Haug F, Haug J, Kammerer K, Pryss R, Heuschmann P, Graessel E et al.. JMIR human factors, 2025-01-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results The translation process during test development took linguistic and cultural aspects into account. In the first focus group discussion, the developers identified and corrected the most significant criticism in the next version. From these findings, it can be concluded that future projects in the field of health apps would also benefit from a similar approach.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zeiler, M., Dietzel, N., Haug, F., Haug, J., Kammerer, K., Pryss, R., et al. (2025). A User-Centered Design Approach for a Screening App for People With Cognitive Impairment (digiDEM-SCREEN): Development and Usability Study. JMIR human factors. https://doi.org/10.2196/65022
Vancouver
Zeiler M, Dietzel N, Haug F, Haug J, Kammerer K, Pryss R, et al. A User-Centered Design Approach for a Screening App for People With Cognitive Impairment (digiDEM-SCREEN): Development and Usability Study. JMIR human factors. 2025. doi:10.2196/65022. PMID: 39849671.
BibTeX
@article{zeiler2025-39849671,
author = {Zeiler, M. and Dietzel, N. and Haug, F. and Haug, J. and Kammerer, K. and Pryss, R. and Heuschmann, P. and Graessel, E. and others},
title = {{A User-Centered Design Approach for a Screening App for People With Cognitive Impairment (digiDEM-SCREEN): Development and Usability Study}},
journal = {JMIR human factors},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.2196/65022},
pmid = {39849671},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/65022}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The translation process during test development took linguistic and cultural aspects into account.
- In the first focus group discussion, the developers identified and corrected the most significant criticism in the next version.
- From these findings, it can be concluded that future projects in the field of health apps would also benefit from a similar approach.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR human factors) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39849671) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.