Assessing Cognition Remotely: Expanding the Reach of Cognitive Testing for Older Adults at Risk for Dementia in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 1.6 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Canadian Geriatrics Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.5770/cgj.28.790
Aidan Steeves, Karla Faig, Chris McGibbon, Andrew Sexton, Pamela Jarrett
{"title":"Assessing Cognition Remotely: Expanding the Reach of Cognitive Testing for Older Adults at Risk for Dementia in a Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Aidan Steeves, Karla Faig, Chris McGibbon, Andrew Sexton, Pamela Jarrett","doi":"10.5770/cgj.28.790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Little is known about whether cognitive assessments can be completed remotely by older adults at risk for dementia, and there is no consensus on which tool is best. The SYNchronising Exercises, Remedies in GaIt and Cognition at Home (SYNERGIC@Home) study evaluated the feasibility of a home-based, double-blind, randomized-controlled trial to improve gait and cognition in individuals at risk for dementia. This paper reports a secondary analytic outcome of the cognitive tests used. The three aims were: 1) to examine whether the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA 8.1 Audiovisual), Cognitive-Functional Composite2 (CFC2), and Telephone Cognitive Screen (T-CogS) could be administered remotely; 2) to compare each tool; 3) to evaluate changes in cognition following the intervention. Sixty participants were randomized to one of four physical/cognitive exercise intervention arms, with 52 participants completing the intervention. Cognitive tests were done in the homes of participants via Zoom for Healthcare™. All 52 participants completed the assessments. The interquartile range (IQR) for the MoCA was 4, the CFC2 was 8, and the T-CogS was 1. At baseline, 11.5% scored perfectly on the MoCA, 0% scored perfectly on the CFC2, and 62% scored perfectly on the T-CogS. Scores on the MoCA (<i>p</i>=.076), CFC2 (<i>p</i>=.053), and T-CogS (<i>p</i>=.281) were not statistically significantly different from baseline to post-intervention. This study demonstrates that these cognitive tests can be administered remotely, with the MoCA and the CFC2 being the most sensitive to variability in scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":56182,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Geriatrics Journal","volume":"28 1","pages":"87-90"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11882207/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Geriatrics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5770/cgj.28.790","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Little is known about whether cognitive assessments can be completed remotely by older adults at risk for dementia, and there is no consensus on which tool is best. The SYNchronising Exercises, Remedies in GaIt and Cognition at Home (SYNERGIC@Home) study evaluated the feasibility of a home-based, double-blind, randomized-controlled trial to improve gait and cognition in individuals at risk for dementia. This paper reports a secondary analytic outcome of the cognitive tests used. The three aims were: 1) to examine whether the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA 8.1 Audiovisual), Cognitive-Functional Composite2 (CFC2), and Telephone Cognitive Screen (T-CogS) could be administered remotely; 2) to compare each tool; 3) to evaluate changes in cognition following the intervention. Sixty participants were randomized to one of four physical/cognitive exercise intervention arms, with 52 participants completing the intervention. Cognitive tests were done in the homes of participants via Zoom for Healthcare™. All 52 participants completed the assessments. The interquartile range (IQR) for the MoCA was 4, the CFC2 was 8, and the T-CogS was 1. At baseline, 11.5% scored perfectly on the MoCA, 0% scored perfectly on the CFC2, and 62% scored perfectly on the T-CogS. Scores on the MoCA (p=.076), CFC2 (p=.053), and T-CogS (p=.281) were not statistically significantly different from baseline to post-intervention. This study demonstrates that these cognitive tests can be administered remotely, with the MoCA and the CFC2 being the most sensitive to variability in scores.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Geriatrics Journal
Canadian Geriatrics Journal Nursing-Gerontology
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Canadian Geriatrics Journal (CGJ) is a peer-reviewed publication that is a home for innovative aging research of a high quality aimed at improving the health and the care provided to older persons residing in Canada and outside our borders. While we gratefully accept submissions from researchers outside our country, we are committed to encouraging aging research by Canadians. The CGJ is targeted to family physicians with training or an interest in the care of older persons, specialists in geriatric medicine, geriatric psychiatrists, and members of other health disciplines with a focus on gerontology.
期刊最新文献
Assessing Cognition Remotely: Expanding the Reach of Cognitive Testing for Older Adults at Risk for Dementia in a Randomized Controlled Trial. Breaking the Inverse Care Law for Fall Prevention Programs: a Collaborative and Community-led Approach. Laboratory Test Use and Values in the Last Year of Life-a Matched Cohort Design. Neuropsychiatric Symptoms and Psychotropic Medication Use Following SARS-Cov-2 Infection Among Elderly Residents in Long-Term Care Facilities. Thank You to Our Reviewers in 2024.
×
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