Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Focus groups on digital cognitive assessment in the context of Alzheimer's disease
Sophie M. van der Landen, Rosanne L. van den Berg, Matthijs J Keijzer, Mariska N. van Liere, Casper de Boer, Leonie N.C. Visser, Wiesje M. van der Flier, Hanneke F. M. Rhodius‐Meester et al.. Digital Health, 2025-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction Digital cognitive assessments (DCAs) may facilitate early recognition of cognitive decline in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD). While DCAs are increasingly emerging, they are often not used in practice. We assessed facilitators and barriers of using DCAs according to older individuals and patients. Methods In five focus groups, we presented three different DCAs to older individuals with unimpaired cognition ( n = 14), subjective cognitive decline ( n = 11) and mild cognitive impairment with biomarker-confirmed AD ( n = 4) and their caregivers ( n = 2). Participants discussed facilitators and barriers that could influence the use of DCAs. Focus groups were recorded, and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Three main themes were identified: (1) test motivation (‘Do I want to know my brain health?’), facilitated by early disease recognition, while impeded by fear of dementia; (2) digital test suitability (‘Do I want to use a digital test?’), enabling at-home testing, while lacking personal contact; and (3) digital test characteristics (‘What makes a digital test a good test for me?’), where user-friendliness was emphasized as a key facilitator to overcome digital incompetence. Discussion Participants recognized the added value of DCAs, and multiple factors were identified as facilitators and barriers for their use. Similar factors could be a barrier for one, yet facilitated others, underlining the need for a personalized approach. Strategies to minimize barriers and exploit facilitators would ultimately foster implementation.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
van der Landen, S. M., van den Berg, R. L., Keijzer, M. J., van Liere, M. N., de Boer, C., Visser, L. N., et al. (2025). Focus groups on digital cognitive assessment in the context of Alzheimer's disease. Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251318903
Vancouver
van der Landen SM, van den Berg RL, Keijzer MJ, van Liere MN, de Boer C, Visser LN, et al. Focus groups on digital cognitive assessment in the context of Alzheimer's disease. Digital Health. 2025. doi:10.1177/20552076251318903. PMID: 39944114.
BibTeX
@article{vanderlanden2025-39944114,
author = {van der Landen, Sophie M. and van den Berg, Rosanne L. and Keijzer, Matthijs J and van Liere, Mariska N. and de Boer, Casper and Visser, Leonie N.C. and van der Flier, Wiesje M. and Rhodius‐Meester, Hanneke F. M. and others},
title = {{Focus groups on digital cognitive assessment in the context of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Digital Health},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1177/20552076251318903},
pmid = {39944114},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251318903}
}
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 Three main themes were identified: (1) test motivation (‘Do I want to know my brain health?’), facilitated by early disease recognition, while impeded by fear of dementia; (2) digital test suitability (‘Do I want to use a digital test?’), enabling at-home testing, while lacking personal contact; and (3) digital test characteristics (‘What makes a digital test a good test for me?’), where user-friendliness was emphasized as a key facilitator to overcome digital incompetence.
Why it matters
These focus groups identified facilitators and barriers to using digital cognitive assessments, including test motivation, digital suitability and user-friendliness. Participants recognised added value of these assessments for early recognition; the study does not test any treatment, cure or prevention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Participants14
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 44/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Digital Health) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Digital Health: journal h-index 77 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 14 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 | 2 / 7 | Cited 5 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 3.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 1 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 5 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Sietske A.M. Sikkes: h-index 47 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | Karolinska Institutet: institution h-index 1,477 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 3 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39944114) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 44 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also in Getting a diagnosis
141 studies in the library are filed under Getting a diagnosis with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Getting a diagnosis hub.