Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background Early detection of cognitive impairment is a goal of high-quality geriatric medical care, but new approaches are needed to reduce rates of missed cases. Objective To evaluate whether adding routine cognitive screening to primary care visits for older adults increases rates of dementia diagnosis, specialist referral, or prescribing of antidementia medications. Setting Four primary care clinics in a university-affiliated primary care network. Design A quality improvement screening project and quasiexperimental comparison of 2 intervention clinics and 2 control clinics. The Mini-Cog was administered by medical assistants to intervention clinic patients aged 65+ years. Rates of dementia diagnoses, referrals, and medication prescribing were tracked over time using computerized administrative data. Results Twenty-six medical assistants successfully screened 70% (n = 524) of all eligible patients who made at least 1 clinic visit during the intervention period; 18% screened positive. There were no complaints about workflow interruption. Relative to baseline rates and control clinics, Mini-Cog screening was associated with increased dementia diagnoses, specialist referrals, and prescribing of cognitive enhancing medications. Patients without previous dementia indicators who had a positive Mini-Cog were more likely than all other patients to receive a new dementia diagnosis, specialty referral, or cognitive enhancing medication. However, relevant physician action occurred in only 17% of screen-positive patients. Responses were most related to the lowest Mini-Cog score level (0/5) and advanced age. Conclusion Mini-Cog screening by office staff is feasible in primary care practice and has measurable effects on physician behavior. However, new physician action relevant to dementia was likely to occur only when impairment was severe, and additional efforts are needed to help primary care physicians follow up appropriately on information suggesting cognitive impairment in older patients.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 26 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.26 of the 58 points we could judge = 45 of 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 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of general internal medicine)
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 1 / 5 2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 524 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 17447100)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
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.

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

Borson, S., Scanlan, J., Hummel, J., Gibbs, K., Lessig, M., & Zuhr, E. (2007). Implementing routine cognitive screening of older adults in primary care: process and impact on physician behavior. Journal of general internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0202-8

Vancouver

Borson S, Scanlan J, Hummel J, Gibbs K, Lessig M, Zuhr E. Implementing routine cognitive screening of older adults in primary care: process and impact on physician behavior. Journal of general internal medicine. 2007. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0202-8. PMID: 17447100.

BibTeX

@article{borson2007-17447100,
  author  = {Borson, S. and Scanlan, J. and Hummel, J. and Gibbs, K. and Lessig, M. and Zuhr, E.},
  title   = {{Implementing routine cognitive screening of older adults in primary care: process and impact on physician behavior}},
  journal = {Journal of general internal medicine},
  year    = {2007},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11606-007-0202-8},
  pmid    = {17447100},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0202-8}
}

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →