Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Usability and Effectiveness of an Individualized, Tablet-Based, Multidomain Exercise Program for People With Dementia Delivered by Nursing Assistants: Protocol for an Evaluation of the InCoPE-App
Barisch-Fritz B, Bezold J, Scharpf A, Trautwein S, Krell-Roesch J, Woll A.. JMIR research protocols, 2022-09-26
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
We will record overall usability using questionnaires (eg, Post-Study System Usability and ISONORM 9241/10), log events, and interviews. Results Enrollment into the study will be completed in the first half of 2022.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Barisch-Fritz, B., Bezold, J., Scharpf, A., Trautwein, S., Krell-Roesch, J., & Woll, A. (2022). Usability and Effectiveness of an Individualized, Tablet-Based, Multidomain Exercise Program for People With Dementia Delivered by Nursing Assistants: Protocol for an Evaluation of the InCoPE-App. JMIR research protocols. https://doi.org/10.2196/36247
Vancouver
Barisch-Fritz B, Bezold J, Scharpf A, Trautwein S, Krell-Roesch J, Woll A. Usability and Effectiveness of an Individualized, Tablet-Based, Multidomain Exercise Program for People With Dementia Delivered by Nursing Assistants: Protocol for an Evaluation of the InCoPE-App. JMIR research protocols. 2022. doi:10.2196/36247. PMID: 36156463.
BibTeX
@article{barischfritz2022-36156463,
author = {Barisch-Fritz, B. and Bezold, J. and Scharpf, A. and Trautwein, S. and Krell-Roesch, J. and Woll, A.},
title = {{Usability and Effectiveness of an Individualized, Tablet-Based, Multidomain Exercise Program for People With Dementia Delivered by Nursing Assistants: Protocol for an Evaluation of the InCoPE-App}},
journal = {JMIR research protocols},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.2196/36247},
pmid = {36156463},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/36247}
}
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
- We will record overall usability using questionnaires (eg, Post-Study System Usability and ISONORM 9241/10), log events, and interviews.
- Results Enrollment into the study will be completed in the first half of 2022.
Study details
- Participants44
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JMIR research protocols) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 44 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 36156463) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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 “assistants”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assistants”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.