Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Remote data collection speech analysis in people at risk for Alzheimer's disease dementia: usability and acceptability results
Gregory S, Harrison J, Herrmann J, Hunter M, Jenkins N, König A, Linz N, Luz S et al.. Frontiers in dementia, 2023-10-13
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Digital cognitive assessments are gathering importance for the decentralized remote clinical trials of the future. Before including such assessments in clinical trials, they must be tested to confirm feasibility and acceptability with the intended participant group. This study presents usability and acceptability data from the Speech on the Phone Assessment (SPeAk) study. Methods Participants ( N = 68, mean age 70.43 years, 52.9% male) provided demographic data and completed baseline and 3-month follow-up phone based assessments. The baseline visit was administered by a trained researcher and included a spontaneous speech assessment and a brief cognitive battery (immediate and delayed recall, digit span, and verbal fluency). The follow-up visit repeated the cognitive battery which was administered by an automatic phone bot. Participants were randomized to receive their cognitive test results acer the final or acer each study visit. Participants completed acceptability questionnaires electronically acer each study visit. Results There was excellent retention (98.5%), few technical issues ( n = 5), and good interrater reliability. Participants rated the assessment as acceptable, confirming the ease of use of the technology and their comfort in completing cognitive tasks on the phone. Participants generally reported feeling happy to receive the results of their cognitive tests, and this disclosure did not cause participants to feel worried. Discussion The results from this usability and acceptability analysis suggest that completing this brief battery of cognitive tests via a telephone call is both acceptable and feasible in a midlife-to-older adult population in the United Kingdom, living at risk for Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gregory, S., Harrison, J., Herrmann, J., Hunter, M., Jenkins, N., König, A., et al. (2023). Remote data collection speech analysis in people at risk for Alzheimer's disease dementia: usability and acceptability results. Frontiers in dementia. https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2023.1271156
Vancouver
Gregory S, Harrison J, Herrmann J, Hunter M, Jenkins N, König A, et al. Remote data collection speech analysis in people at risk for Alzheimer's disease dementia: usability and acceptability results. Frontiers in dementia. 2023. doi:10.3389/frdem.2023.1271156. PMID: 39081993.
BibTeX
@article{gregory2023-39081993,
author = {Gregory, S. and Harrison, J. and Herrmann, J. and Hunter, M. and Jenkins, N. and König, A. and Linz, N. and Luz, S. and others},
title = {{Remote data collection speech analysis in people at risk for Alzheimer's disease dementia: usability and acceptability results}},
journal = {Frontiers in dementia},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3389/frdem.2023.1271156},
pmid = {39081993},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2023.1271156}
}
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
- Participants were randomized to receive their cognitive test results acer the final or acer each study visit.
- Results There was excellent retention (98.5%), few technical issues ( n = 5), and good interrater reliability.
- Participants generally reported feeling happy to receive the results of their cognitive tests, and this disclosure did not cause participants to feel worried.
- Discussion The results from this usability and acceptability analysis suggest that completing this brief battery of cognitive tests via a telephone call is both acceptable and feasible in a midlife-to-older adult population in the United Kingdom, living at risk for Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Participants68
- Effect size52.9%; 98.5%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 62/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in dementia) |
| 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 | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 68 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 39081993) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 36 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100. |
| Total | 62 / 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 tagged “speech”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “speech”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.