Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
How do patients, medical assistants and physicians accept and experience tablet-based cognitive testing by medical assistants in general practice? - A qualitative study
Rolke K, Rosendahl C, Weckbecker K, Hanke A, Wagner M, Nissen L, Reimer LM, Jonas S et al.. BMC primary care, 2025-05-17
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Approximately 1.8 million people with dementia live in Germany and the number is expected to increase in the coming years. Between 360,000 and 440,000 new cases are diagnosed each year. General practitioners (GPs) are often the first point of contact for people with concerns about their memory performance or already noticed symptoms of dementia. However, structural barriers can hinder timely diagnosis by GPs, resulting in diagnoses frequently being made later in the disease's progression. Tablet-based cognitive testing, carried out by medical assistants (MAs) in GP practices, is being tested in the iCreate feasibility study, and could facilitate detection of dementia, allowing those affected to receive timely treatment and support. However, the acceptance, user experience and perceived benefits and consequences of routine implementation of such a not established procedure remain unclear until now. Methods In this qualitative study, seven GPs, six MAs and eight patients were qualitatively interviewed regarding the acceptance, user experience of the tablet-based procedure and its implications for GP care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using newly developed guidelines, recorded, transcribed and analysed according to Kuckartz and Rädiker using MAXQDA. Results All respondent groups had a positive perception of the digital testing in GP practices. Interviewed MAs welcomed the new responsibilities, and patients gladly accepted the opportunity of cognitive assessment in response to their memory concerns. GPs supported delegating additional tasks to MAs. Patients found the digital testing tasks feasible to complete on the tablet and MAs also had positive experiences using the tablet as test administrators. All groups can generally envision a long-term implementation of the tests in practice, but also noted possible barriers, like the need for additional communication with specialists, limited time resources, and currently insufficient remuneration of cognitive testing. Conclusions The positive user experience and high acceptance of participants indicate that tablet-based cognitive testing in GP settings can be highly feasible and can thus lead to indicated specialist referrals. Consequently, the management of patients exhibiting dementia symptoms should increasingly commence in GP practices, receive adequate funding, and occur in close collaboration with other specialized disciplines.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rolke, K., Rosendahl, C., Weckbecker, K., Hanke, A., Wagner, M., Nissen, L., et al. (2025). How do patients, medical assistants and physicians accept and experience tablet-based cognitive testing by medical assistants in general practice? - A qualitative study. BMC primary care. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02823-z
Vancouver
Rolke K, Rosendahl C, Weckbecker K, Hanke A, Wagner M, Nissen L, et al. How do patients, medical assistants and physicians accept and experience tablet-based cognitive testing by medical assistants in general practice? - A qualitative study. BMC primary care. 2025. doi:10.1186/s12875-025-02823-z. PMID: 40382582.
BibTeX
@article{rolke2025-40382582,
author = {Rolke, K. and Rosendahl, C. and Weckbecker, K. and Hanke, A. and Wagner, M. and Nissen, L. and Reimer, L. M. and Jonas, S. and others},
title = {{How do patients, medical assistants and physicians accept and experience tablet-based cognitive testing by medical assistants in general practice? - A qualitative study}},
journal = {BMC primary care},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1186/s12875-025-02823-z},
pmid = {40382582},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02823-z}
}
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 All respondent groups had a positive perception of the digital testing in GP practices.
- Conclusions The positive user experience and high acceptance of participants indicate that tablet-based cognitive testing in GP settings can be highly feasible and can thus lead to indicated specialist referrals.
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 (BMC primary care) |
| 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 40382582) |
| 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.