Tele-neuropsychological Assessment of Children and Young People: A Systematic Review.

Pub Date : 2023-05-31 DOI:10.1007/s40817-023-00144-6
Elise J Walker, Fenella J Kirkham, Hanne Stotesbury, Dagmara Dimitriou, Anna M Hood
{"title":"Tele-neuropsychological Assessment of Children and Young People: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Elise J Walker,&nbsp;Fenella J Kirkham,&nbsp;Hanne Stotesbury,&nbsp;Dagmara Dimitriou,&nbsp;Anna M Hood","doi":"10.1007/s40817-023-00144-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The coronavirus pandemic identified a clinical need for pediatric tele-neuropsychology (TeleNP) assessment. However, due to limited research, clinicians have had little information to develop, adapt, or select reliable pediatric assessments for TeleNP. This preliminary systematic review aimed to examine the feasibility of pediatric TeleNP assessment alongside (1) patient/family acceptability, (2) reliability, and (3) the quality of the literature. Between May 2021 and November 2022, manual searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar were conducted using terms related to \"pediatric\" and \"tele-neuropsychology.\" After extracting relevant papers with samples aged 0-22 years, predefined exclusion criteria were applied. Quality assessment was completed using the AXIS appraisal tool (91% rater-agreement). Twenty-one studies were included in the review, with reported qualitative and quantitative data on the feasibility, reliability, and acceptability extracted. Across included studies, TeleNP was completed via telephone/video conference with participants either at home, in a local setting accompanied by an assistant, or in a different room but in the same building as the assessor. Pediatric TeleNP was generally reported to be feasible (e.g., minimal behavioral differences) and acceptable (e.g., positive feedback). Nineteen studies conducted some statistical analyses to assess reliability. Most observed no significant difference between in-person and TeleNP for most cognitive domains (i.e., IQ), with a minority finding variable reliability for some tests (e.g., attention, speech, visuo-spatial). Limited reporting of sex-assigned birth, racialized identity, and ethnicity reduced the quality and generalizability of the literature. To aid clinical interpretations, studies should assess underexamined cognitive domains (e.g., processing speed) with larger, more inclusive samples.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40817-023-00144-6.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10231293/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40817-023-00144-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The coronavirus pandemic identified a clinical need for pediatric tele-neuropsychology (TeleNP) assessment. However, due to limited research, clinicians have had little information to develop, adapt, or select reliable pediatric assessments for TeleNP. This preliminary systematic review aimed to examine the feasibility of pediatric TeleNP assessment alongside (1) patient/family acceptability, (2) reliability, and (3) the quality of the literature. Between May 2021 and November 2022, manual searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar were conducted using terms related to "pediatric" and "tele-neuropsychology." After extracting relevant papers with samples aged 0-22 years, predefined exclusion criteria were applied. Quality assessment was completed using the AXIS appraisal tool (91% rater-agreement). Twenty-one studies were included in the review, with reported qualitative and quantitative data on the feasibility, reliability, and acceptability extracted. Across included studies, TeleNP was completed via telephone/video conference with participants either at home, in a local setting accompanied by an assistant, or in a different room but in the same building as the assessor. Pediatric TeleNP was generally reported to be feasible (e.g., minimal behavioral differences) and acceptable (e.g., positive feedback). Nineteen studies conducted some statistical analyses to assess reliability. Most observed no significant difference between in-person and TeleNP for most cognitive domains (i.e., IQ), with a minority finding variable reliability for some tests (e.g., attention, speech, visuo-spatial). Limited reporting of sex-assigned birth, racialized identity, and ethnicity reduced the quality and generalizability of the literature. To aid clinical interpretations, studies should assess underexamined cognitive domains (e.g., processing speed) with larger, more inclusive samples.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40817-023-00144-6.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
儿童和青少年的远程神经心理评估:一项系统综述。
冠状病毒大流行确定了儿科远程神经心理学(TeleNP)评估的临床需求。然而,由于研究有限,临床医生几乎没有信息来开发、适应或选择可靠的TeleNP儿科评估。这项初步的系统综述旨在检验儿科TeleNP评估的可行性,以及(1)患者/家庭的可接受性,(2)可靠性和(3)文献的质量。2021年5月至2022年11月,使用与“儿科”和“远程神经心理学”相关的术语对PubMed、PsycINFO和Google Scholar进行了手动搜索。在提取了0-22岁样本的相关论文后,应用了预定义的排除标准。使用AXIS评估工具完成质量评估(91%的评分者同意)。审查中包括21项研究,并提取了关于可行性、可靠性和可接受性的定性和定量数据。在纳入的研究中,TeleNP是通过电话/视频会议完成的,参与者要么在家里,要么在助手的陪同下在当地环境中,要么在不同的房间里,但与评估员在同一栋楼里。据报道,儿科远程NP通常是可行的(例如,最小的行为差异)和可接受的(例如正反馈)。19项研究进行了一些统计分析以评估可靠性。大多数人在大多数认知领域(即IQ)观察到,面对面和远程NP之间没有显著差异,少数人在一些测试(如注意力、言语、视觉空间)中发现了可变的可靠性。对性别分配出生、种族化身份和种族的有限报道降低了文献的质量和可推广性。为了帮助临床解释,研究应该用更大、更具包容性的样本来评估未充分检查的认知领域(例如处理速度)。补充信息:在线版本包含补充材料,可访问10.1007/s40817-023-00144-6。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1