Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Can smartphones enhance telephone-based cognitive assessment (TBCA)?
Kwan RY, Lai CK.. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2013-12-12
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
TBCA has emerged to solve the limitations of administering cognitive assessments face-to-face. The recent development of telephones and knowledge advances in the area of cognitive impairment may affect the development of TBCA. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how smartphones can be used to enhance the applicability of TBCA, which has previously been administered by conventional telephone. This paper will first review, describe and critique the existing TBCA instruments. It will then discuss the recent developments in tele-technology, the popularity of tele-technology among the elderly, potential benefits and challenges in using smartphones for cognitive assessment, and possible future developments in this technology. In the systematic review, eighteen TBCA instruments were identified. They were found to be valid in differentiating between people with and without dementia. TBCA was previously found to be launched on a conventional telephone platform. The advances in understanding of cognitive impairment may demand that telephones be equipped with more advanced features. Recently, the development and penetration of smartphones among the elderly has been rapid. This may allow the smartphone to enhance its TBCA applicability by overcoming the limitations of the conventional telephone, rendering the TBCA more efficient in addressing the increasing demand and complexity of cognitive assessments in the future. However, more research and technology developments are needed before smartphones can become a valid platform for TBCA.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kwan, R. Y., & Lai, C. K. (2013). Can smartphones enhance telephone-based cognitive assessment (TBCA)? International journal of environmental research and public health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10127110
Vancouver
Kwan RY, Lai CK. Can smartphones enhance telephone-based cognitive assessment (TBCA)? International journal of environmental research and public health. 2013. doi:10.3390/ijerph10127110. PMID: 24351736.
BibTeX
@article{kwan2013-24351736,
author = {Kwan, R. Y. and Lai, C. K.},
title = {{Can smartphones enhance telephone-based cognitive assessment (TBCA)?}},
journal = {International journal of environmental research and public health},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.3390/ijerph10127110},
pmid = {24351736},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10127110}
}
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.
Key findings
- TBCA was previously found to be launched on a conventional telephone platform.
- The advances in understanding of cognitive impairment may demand that telephones be equipped with more advanced features.
- Recently, the development and penetration of smartphones among the elderly has been rapid.
- This may allow the smartphone to enhance its TBCA applicability by overcoming the limitations of the conventional telephone, rendering the TBCA more efficient in addressing the increasing demand and complexity of cognitive assessments in the future.
- However, more research and technology developments are needed before smartphones can become a valid platform for TBCA.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of environmental research and public health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2013 — within 20 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 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 24351736) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also in Cognitive tests and assessment
98 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.