Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Acceptance of Unsupervised App-Based Cognitive Assessment in Outpatient Care: An Implementation Study
Iris Blotenberg, Melanie Boekholt, Nils Lieberknecht, Paula Säring, Jochen René Thyrian. JMIR formative research, 2025-02-13
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
We received completed questionnaires from physicians for 45 patients. In addition, we received 45 completed questionnaires from the patients themselves. The physicians reported that, for most patients, the app supported their decision-making in the diagnostic process (26/45, 58%). In addition, most physicians found the app's information dependable (34/45, 76%) and felt more certain in their decisions (38/45, 84%). From the patients' perspective, a majority felt thoroughly tested (34/45, 76%), and only a few considered the time commitment for the cognitive tests to be too burdensome (7/45, 16%). Furthermore, despite the weekly cognitive testing and the lengthy 12-week testing period, a majority of patients participated in all tests (39/54, 72%). Our results indicate a high level of acceptance by physicians and patients, suggesting significant potential for the implementation of unsupervised digital cognitive assessments into routine health care. In the future, acceptance should be assessed in large-scale studies, with a particular focus on the impact on health care delivery and patient outcomes.
Key findings
- We received completed questionnaires from physicians for 45 patients.
- In addition, we received 45 completed questionnaires from the patients themselves.
- The physicians reported that, for most patients, the app supported their decision-making in the diagnostic process (26/45, 58%).
- In addition, most physicians found the app's information dependable (34/45, 76%) and felt more certain in their decisions (38/45, 84%).
- From the patients' perspective, a majority felt thoroughly tested (34/45, 76%), and only a few considered the time commitment for the cognitive tests to be too burdensome (7/45, 16%).
Study details
- Participants45
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR formative research) |
| 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 | 1 / 4 | 45 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 39946414) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Blotenberg, I., Boekholt, M., Lieberknecht, N., Säring, P., & Thyrian, J. R. (2025). Acceptance of Unsupervised App-Based Cognitive Assessment in Outpatient Care: An Implementation Study. JMIR formative research. https://doi.org/10.2196/62706
Vancouver
Blotenberg I, Boekholt M, Lieberknecht N, Säring P, Thyrian JR. Acceptance of Unsupervised App-Based Cognitive Assessment in Outpatient Care: An Implementation Study. JMIR formative research. 2025. doi:10.2196/62706. PMID: 39946414.
BibTeX
@article{blotenberg2025-39946414,
author = {Blotenberg, Iris and Boekholt, Melanie and Lieberknecht, Nils and Säring, Paula and Thyrian, Jochen René},
title = {{Acceptance of Unsupervised App-Based Cognitive Assessment in Outpatient Care: An Implementation Study}},
journal = {JMIR formative research},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.2196/62706},
pmid = {39946414},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/62706}
}
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.