Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39546346›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Exploring the Qualitative Experiences of Administering and Participating in Remote Research via Telephone Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind: Cross-Sectional Study of Older Adults.

Shirley Dumassais, Karl Singh Grewal, Gabrielle Aubin, Megan O'Connell, Natalie A Phillips, Walter Wittich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Degree of rurality moderates the association of sedentary time with cognitive function in rural patients with cardiac diseases and depressive symptoms.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shirley Dumassais *École d'Optométrie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0009-0004-8912-8699
Karl Singh Grewal *Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5259-0979
Gabrielle AubinÉcole d'Optométrie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1675-5331
Megan O'ConnellDepartment of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6159-4322
Natalie A PhillipsDepartment of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0855-2961
Walter WittichÉcole d'Optométrie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2184-6139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused a drastic shift in the practice of research and clinical services. It has been noted that cognition measured via in-person versus remote methods differ substantially, and it is possible that subjective and experiential differences exist between modalities.

objectiveThe aim of the study is to explore the perceptions of both researchers and older adult participants on the experience of remotely conducted research using a cognitive screener.

methodsWe conducted a thematic analysis of the experience of engaging in remote research from both the participant (n=10) and researcher (n=4) perspectives. The research interaction was framed through teleadministration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind (suitable for telephone administration) and administration of a subsequent semistructured debriefing interview. Participant perspectives were garnered during debriefing interviews, while researcher insights were collected via self-reported qualitative field notes completed following each research session.

resultsData aggregated into themes of barriers and facilitators from the lenses of both participants and researchers. Participants noted facilitators including short instrument length, convenience, and presession contact; barriers included the length of the interaction, some tasks being more challenging on the phone, and the potential for participant dishonesty. Research assistants noted several facilitators: instrument length, rapport building, ability to prepare for and record sessions, and comfort with the protocol; barriers were items with too many response options, telephone issues (eg, response delays), and concerns about participant comprehension.

conclusionsThese results suggest remote telephone-delivered cognitive screening tools as a feasible and acceptable method of research inquiry. The findings provide a starting point for the inclusion of diverse populations in research to capture underrepresented groups whose input would immensely benefit our understanding of remotely delivered cognitive screening measures. Further, we offer materials (eg, checklists), which can be used in future investigations to promote future inclusive research and increase generalizability.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mental Status and Dementia TestsQualitative ResearchTelephoneAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2Telemedicineassessmentcognitivecross-sectionalmobile phoneMoCAMontreal Cognitive Assessmentneuropsychologicalneuropsychological testsperceptionperspectivequalitativeremotescreeningsocial inclusiontelehealthtelemedicinetelephonethematic

Identifiers

PMID39546346
PMCPMC11607555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.