Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Computerized Cognitive Testing in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study
Geneva Millett, Gary Naglie, Ross Upshur, Liisa Jaakkimainen, Jocelyn Charles, Mary C Tierney. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders, 2018
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Computerized cognitive assessment tools may facilitate early identification of dementia in the primary care setting. We investigated primary care physicians' (PCPs') views on advantages and disadvantages of computerized testing based on their experience with the Computer Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI). Over a 2-month period, 259 patients, 65 years and older, from the family practice of 13 PCPs completed the CAMCI. Twelve PCPs participated in an individual interview. Generally, PCPs felt that the relationship between them and their patients helped facilitate cognitive testing; however, they thought available paper tests were time consuming and not sufficiently informative. Despite concerns regarding elderly patients' computer literacy, PCPs noticed high completion rates and that their patients had generally positive experiences completing the CAMCI. PCPs appreciated the time-saving advantage of the CAMCI and the immediately generated report, but thought the report should be shortened to 1 page and that PCPs should receive training in its interpretation. Our results suggest that computerized cognitive tools such as the CAMCI can address PCPs' concerns with cognitive testing in their offices. Recommendations to improve the practicality of computerized testing in primary care were suggested.
Key findings
- Our results suggest that computerized cognitive tools such as the CAMCI can address PCPs' concerns with cognitive testing in their offices.
Study details
- Participants259
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
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 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer disease and associated disorders) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 259 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 29140858) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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
Millett, G., Naglie, G., Upshur, R., Jaakkimainen, L., Charles, J., & Tierney, M. C. (2018). Computerized Cognitive Testing in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0000000000000219
Vancouver
Millett G, Naglie G, Upshur R, Jaakkimainen L, Charles J, Tierney MC. Computerized Cognitive Testing in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. 2018. doi:10.1097/wad.0000000000000219. PMID: 29140858.
BibTeX
@article{millett2018-29140858,
author = {Millett, Geneva and Naglie, Gary and Upshur, Ross and Jaakkimainen, Liisa and Charles, Jocelyn and Tierney, Mary C},
title = {{Computerized Cognitive Testing in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study}},
journal = {Alzheimer disease and associated disorders},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1097/wad.0000000000000219},
pmid = {29140858},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0000000000000219}
}