Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Effects of Computerized Cognitive Testing of Older Patients on Primary Care Physicians' Approaches to Care: A Canadian Study
Tierney MC, Charles J, Naglie G, Jaakkimainen L, Moineddin R.. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders, 2017-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background We evaluated effects of providing primary care physicians (PCPs) with reports of their patients' results on the Computer Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI) by examining their documented care approaches after receipt of the report. Methods Patients were 65 years and above, without a diagnosis or previous workup for dementia, seen consecutively over 2 months by one of 13 PCPs. PCPs indicated whether they, patients, or families had concerns about patients' cognition. A total of 259 patients individually completed the CAMCI and results were provided to the PCP. Two raters blind to CAMCI results recorded care approaches documented by PCPs at the first visit within 3 months of report (n=181). Results In total, 28 different care approaches were grouped as related to Cognition or Safety/Self-Care. Negative binomial regression revealed that the number of care approaches was significantly associated with performance on the CAMCI for both Cognition and Safety/Self-care domains. These findings remained significant when covariates included PCPs' cognitive concern before CAMCI results, and patients' age, sex, number of comorbidities, and living arrangements. Conclusions Our findings indicate that PCPs documented more care approaches in patients with greater cognitive impairment based on the CAMCI results and this was independent of their, the patients', or families' prior concerns about their patients' cognition.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Tierney, M. C., Charles, J., Naglie, G., Jaakkimainen, L., & Moineddin, R. (2017). The Effects of Computerized Cognitive Testing of Older Patients on Primary Care Physicians' Approaches to Care: A Canadian Study. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0000000000000159
Vancouver
Tierney MC, Charles J, Naglie G, Jaakkimainen L, Moineddin R. The Effects of Computerized Cognitive Testing of Older Patients on Primary Care Physicians' Approaches to Care: A Canadian Study. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. 2017. doi:10.1097/wad.0000000000000159. PMID: 27341011.
BibTeX
@article{tierney2017-27341011,
author = {Tierney, M. C. and Charles, J. and Naglie, G. and Jaakkimainen, L. and Moineddin, R.},
title = {{The Effects of Computerized Cognitive Testing of Older Patients on Primary Care Physicians' Approaches to Care: A Canadian Study}},
journal = {Alzheimer disease and associated disorders},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1097/wad.0000000000000159},
pmid = {27341011},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0000000000000159}
}
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 We evaluated effects of providing primary care physicians (PCPs) with reports of their patients' results on the Computer Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI) by examining their documented care approaches after receipt of the report.
- A total of 259 patients individually completed the CAMCI and results were provided to the PCP.
- Two raters blind to CAMCI results recorded care approaches documented by PCPs at the first visit within 3 months of report (n=181).
- Results In total, 28 different care approaches were grouped as related to Cognition or Safety/Self-Care.
- Negative binomial regression revealed that the number of care approaches was significantly associated with performance on the CAMCI for both Cognition and Safety/Self-care domains.
Study details
- Participants181
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer disease and associated disorders) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 181 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 27341011) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “cognitive-testing”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-testing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.