MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303650535 · doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06805-9

Eligibility screening older research participants using remote cognitive assessment—experiences and reflections from a primary care randomised controlled trial

2022· letter· en· W4303650535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline Brundle, Anne Heaven, Andrew Clegg

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineMoodTelephone interviewCognitionData collectionRandomized controlled trialInformed consentTest (biology)Cognitive interviewCognitive impairmentApplied psychologyPsychologyAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many research teams to adjust the way they conduct studies, including moving to remote delivery of some or all of their recruitment and data collection processes. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely used in research and is available in multiple formats for different groups and assessment settings. Here, we reflect on our experiences of administering the MoCA Blind/Telephone as part of the initial telephone eligibility check for participation in a randomised controlled trial with community-dwelling older people with frailty. MAIN BODY: In response to COVID-19, a number of changes were made to the trial's screening and recruitment procedures, to minimise the amount of time the researchers would spend in the participants' homes when recruitment began in May 2021. One of the changes was for the researchers to conduct a cognitive assessment for eligibility during an initial telephone call, rather than during the subsequent home visit for consent and baseline data collection. We found that in comparison with conducting the assessment in-person, telephone administration caused uncertainty for the researchers about whether participants were struggling to answer questions due to cognition or hearing impairment. Some participants experienced practical difficulties when combining holding a telephone and completing one of the assessment items. It was hard for the researchers to judge the emotional impact that undertaking the assessment was having on the older people on the telephone, without visual warning signs of fatigue or mood. We discuss the potential impact of these issues on trial recruitment and participant engagement, and the feasibility of videoconferencing as an alternative method of conducting the MoCA. CONCLUSION: The MoCA is a useful tool when cognitive impairment is part of screening and data collection and it is helpful to have the option to use the test remotely. However, as we have found, telephone testing is not always straightforward. Researchers should weigh up the pros and cons for each individual study, especially those involving older adults. If choosing remote methods, consider the practicality of using videoconferencing and think about the possible impact of telephone assessment on the relationship with the (potential) research participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Personalised care planning for older people with frailty ISRCTN16123291 28/08/2020.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.406
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207