Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Randomized Comparison of Mobile and Web-Tools to Provide Dementia Risk Reduction Education: Use, Engagement and Participant Satisfaction
O'Connor E, Farrow M, Hatherly C.. JMIR mental health, 2014-07-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Encouraging middle-aged adults to maintain their physical and cognitive health may have a significant impact on reducing the prevalence of dementia in the future. Results Of 415 eligible participants, 370 (89.16%) completed the baseline questionnaire and were assigned to an intervention group; 200 (54.05%) completed the post-intervention questionnaire. Findings indicated that participants from all three intervention groups reported a generally positive impression of the tools across a range of domains. Participants using the information-based website reported higher ratings of their overall impression of the tool, F2,191=4.12, P=.02; how interesting the information was, F2,189=3.53, P=.03; how helpful the information was, F2,192=4.15, P=.02; and how much they learned, F2,188=3.86, P=.02. Group differences were significant between the mobile phone app and information-based website users, but not between the interactive website users and the other two groups. Additionally, participants using the information-based website reported significantly higher scores on their ratings of the ease of navigation, F2,190=4.20, P=.02, than those using the mobile phone app and the interactive website. There were no significant differences between groups on ratings of ease of understanding the information, F2,188=0.27, P=.76. Most participants from each of the three intervention groups indicated that they intended to keep using the dementia risk reduction eHealth tool. Conclusions Overall, results indicated that while participants across all three intervention groups reported a generally positive experience with the targeted dementia risk reduction tools, participants using the information-based website provided a more favorable evaluation across a range of areas than participants using the mobile phone app.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
O'Connor, E., Farrow, M., & Hatherly, C. (2014). Randomized Comparison of Mobile and Web-Tools to Provide Dementia Risk Reduction Education: Use, Engagement and Participant Satisfaction. JMIR mental health. https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.3654
Vancouver
O'Connor E, Farrow M, Hatherly C. Randomized Comparison of Mobile and Web-Tools to Provide Dementia Risk Reduction Education: Use, Engagement and Participant Satisfaction. JMIR mental health. 2014. doi:10.2196/mental.3654. PMID: 26543904.
BibTeX
@article{oconnor2014-26543904,
author = {O'Connor, E. and Farrow, M. and Hatherly, C.},
title = {{Randomized Comparison of Mobile and Web-Tools to Provide Dementia Risk Reduction Education: Use, Engagement and Participant Satisfaction}},
journal = {JMIR mental health},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.2196/mental.3654},
pmid = {26543904},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.3654}
}
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
- Background Encouraging middle-aged adults to maintain their physical and cognitive health may have a significant impact on reducing the prevalence of dementia in the future.
- Results Of 415 eligible participants, 370 (89.16%) completed the baseline questionnaire and were assigned to an intervention group; 200 (54.05%) completed the post-intervention questionnaire.
- Findings indicated that participants from all three intervention groups reported a generally positive impression of the tools across a range of domains.
- Participants using the information-based website reported higher ratings of their overall impression of the tool, F2,191=4.12, P=.02; how interesting the information was, F2,189=3.53, P=.03; how helpful the information was, F2,192=4.15, P=.02; and how much they learned, F2,188=3.86, P=.02.
- Group differences were significant between the mobile phone app and information-based website users, but not between the interactive website users and the other two groups.
Study details
- Effect size89.16%; 54.05%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size 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 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 (JMIR mental health) |
| 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 | 2014 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 26543904) |
| 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 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.