Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The usability and reliability of a smartphone application for monitoring future dementia risk in ageing UK adults
Reid G, Vassilev P, Irving J, Ojakäär T, Jacobson L, Lawrence EG, Barnett J, Tapparel M et al.. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2024-06-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background The rising number of dementia diagnoses and imminent adoption of disease-modifying treatments necessitate innovative approaches to identify individuals at risk, monitor disease course and intervene non-pharmacologically earlier in the disease course. Digital assessments of dementia risk and cognitive function have the potential to outperform traditional in-person assessments in terms of their affordability, accuracy and longitudinal tracking abilities. However, their accessibility and reliability in older adults is unclear. Aims To evaluate the usability and reliability of a smartphone assessment of lifestyle and cognitive factors relevant to dementia risk in a group of UK-based older adults. Method Cognitively healthy adults ( n = 756) recruited through the Dementias Platform UK Great Minds volunteer register completed three assessments of cognitive function and dementia risk over a 3-month period and provided usability feedback on the Five Lives smartphone application (app). We evaluated cognitive test scores for age, gender and higher education effects, normality distributions, test-retest reliability and their relationship with participants' lifestyle dementia risk factors. Results Participants found the app 'easy to use', 'quick to complete' and 'enjoyable'. The cognitive tests showed normal or near-to-normal distributions, variable test-retest reliabilities and age-related effects. Only tests of verbal ability showed gender and education effects. The cognitive tests did not correlate with lifestyle dementia risk scores. Conclusions The Five Lives assessment demonstrates high usability and reliability among older adults. These findings highlight the potential of digital assessments in dementia research and clinical practice, enabling improved accessibility and better monitoring of cognitive health on a larger scale than traditional in-person assessments.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Reid, G., Vassilev, P., Irving, J., Ojakäär, T., Jacobson, L., Lawrence, E. G., et al. (2024). The usability and reliability of a smartphone application for monitoring future dementia risk in ageing UK adults. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.18
Vancouver
Reid G, Vassilev P, Irving J, Ojakäär T, Jacobson L, Lawrence EG, et al. The usability and reliability of a smartphone application for monitoring future dementia risk in ageing UK adults. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 2024. doi:10.1192/bjp.2024.18. PMID: 38356396.
BibTeX
@article{reid2024-38356396,
author = {Reid, G. and Vassilev, P. and Irving, J. and Ojakäär, T. and Jacobson, L. and Lawrence, E. G. and Barnett, J. and Tapparel, M. and others},
title = {{The usability and reliability of a smartphone application for monitoring future dementia risk in ageing UK adults}},
journal = {The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1192/bjp.2024.18},
pmid = {38356396},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.18}
}
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 Participants found the app 'easy to use', 'quick to complete' and 'enjoyable'.
- These findings highlight the potential of digital assessments in dementia research and clinical practice, enabling improved accessibility and better monitoring of cognitive health on a larger scale than traditional in-person assessments.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants756
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 69/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 756 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 38356396) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100. |
| Total | 69 / 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 “monitoring”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “monitoring”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.