ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Usability of a Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment Administered by Medical Assistants in General Practice: 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ["No shows" in dementia diagnostics: qualitative perspectives of patients and caregivers after a positive case finding by general practitioners].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital short cognitive tests administered by medical assistants (MAs) in general practitioners' (GPs) practices have great potential for the timely identification of patients with dementia, because they can lead to targeted specialist referrals or to immediate reassurance of patients regarding their perceived concerns. However, integration of this testing approach into clinical practice requires good usability for the test itself, especially for cognitively impaired older adults.
objectiveIn this implementation study, the digital version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Duo was conducted by MAs in general practice. We tested if the interaction with the test is associated with usability problems for the patients and aimed to find additional relevant constructs that should be considered for the potential implementation of such digital tests into clinical practice. We focused the study on subjective success, usability, and workload as well as their association with the result of the cognitive test to assess whether the MoCA Duo can be implemented into general practice.
methodsIn total, 10 GPs took part in the study. Within their practices, 299 GP patients (aged 51-97 years) with cognitive concerns completed the MoCA Duo administered by MAs. Subsequently, patients and MAs completed digital questionnaires regarding the interaction with the app. Usability was measured using the adapted System Usability Scale, and perceived workload using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index. For the perceived workload, we included an assessment of the patient by the MA. Results of the MoCA Duo were supplied to the GPs for their consultation with the patient.
resultsThe results indicated good usability for the MoCA Duo. Self-assessment by the patients indicated that 64% (191/299) could perform in the test to the best of their ability, affected by their MoCA score. We found significant higher usability ratings by patients with better MoCA scores as well as by younger patients. Furthermore, the perceived workload showed overall medium workload. We found significant correlations between the subjective perceived workload of the patients and the assessment by MAs. Self-assessments as well as assessments by the MAs were significantly influenced by the MoCA scores and the age of the participants.
conclusionsThe results indicate good usability of the digital MoCA within the sample, supporting the idea that the resulting scores are adequate to assess cognitive status without dependence on technological affinity. Furthermore, the results highlight the relevance of heterogenous samples for comparable evaluation studies, based on the significant effect of cognitive status and age on usability and workload.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.