ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Acceptance of Unsupervised App-Based Cognitive Assessment in Outpatient Care: An Implementation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote Assessment of Ataxia Severity in SCA3 Across Multiple Centers and Time Points.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Observational
- Usability of a Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment Administered by Medical Assistants in General Practice: Implementation Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Obstacles and solutions for implementing amyloid-targeting treatments in Europe.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
- From cognitive screening to digital phenotyping: rethinking early detection of cognitive impairment in primary care.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of unsupervised digital cognitive assessments provides considerable opportunities for early and comprehensive testing for Alzheimer disease, minimizing the demand on time and personnel resources in medical practices. However, the acceptance within health care has yet to be assessed. Objective: In this implementation study, the acceptance of an app-based, repeated cognitive assessment for early symptoms of Alzheimer disease in the outpatient care setting from both physicians' and patients' perspectives was examined. Methods: In total, 15 primary care practices participated, where patients with self- or relative-reported memory problems could be prescribed an app (neotivCare app [neotiv GmbH]) for comprehensive cognitive testing. Patients used the app to test their episodic memory function weekly for 12 weeks at home. After the testing period and the final consultation, physicians and patients received questionnaires to assess the app's acceptance. Results: We received completed questionnaires from physicians for 45 patients. In addition, we received 45 completed questionnaires from the patients themselves. The physicians reported that, for most patients, the app supported their decision-making in the diagnostic process (26/45, 58%). In addition, most physicians found the app's information dependable (34/45, 76%) and felt more certain in their decisions (38/45, 84%). From the patients' perspective, a majority felt thoroughly tested (34/45, 76%), and only a few considered the time commitment for the cognitive tests to be too burdensome (7/45, 16%). Furthermore, despite the weekly cognitive testing and the lengthy 12-week testing period, a majority of patients participated in all tests (39/54, 72%). Conclusions: Our results indicate a high level of acceptance by physicians and patients, suggesting significant potential for the implementation of unsupervised digital cognitive assessments into routine health care. In the future, acceptance should be assessed in large-scale studies, with a particular focus on the impact on health care delivery and patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.