| Literature DB >> 27515687 |
Teresa Costa Castanho1, Liliana Amorim1, Pedro Silva Moreira1, José Mariz2, Joana Almeida Palha1, Nuno Sousa1, Nadine Correia Santos3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of communication technologies is an emerging trend in healthcare and research. Despite efficient, reliable and accurate neuropsychological batteries to evaluate cognitive performance in-person, more diverse and less expensive and time consuming solutions are needed. Here we conducted a pilot study to determine the applicability of a videoconference (VC, Skype®) approach to assess cognitive function in older adults, using The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-Modified - Portuguese version (TICSM-PT).Entities:
Keywords: Ageing; Cognitive instruments; Epidemiological studies; Telemedicine
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27515687 PMCID: PMC5049917 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Sample characterization.
| Gender | |
| Male | 28 (40.6%) |
| Female | 41 (59.4%) |
| Age | 74.3 (9.46), [57–95] |
| Years of formal education | 4 (3.29), [0–17] b |
| Group | |
| Healthy | 50 (72.5%) |
| AD | 9 (27.5%) |
| Provenience/setting | |
| Community | 20 (29.0%) |
| Day care center | 30 (43.5%) |
| Nursing home | 19 (27.5%) |
Data presented as n (% of total sample).
Data presented as mean (SD), [range].
Fig. 1Participants flow diagram.
Feedback from individuals concerning TICSM-PT VC assessment.
| N of participants who took part in the discussion | % of total sample | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpersonal communication | Ease in communication between psychologist and participant | 52 | 75 |
| Being anxious or nervous during examination | 2 | 2.8 | |
| Ease in understanding test instructions during VC assessment | 58 | 84 | |
| Satisfaction with the equipment | Comfort with the equipment used | 61 | 88 |
| Poor audio or visual quality | 8 | 11.5 | |
| Ease in manipulating the computer | 10 | 14.5 | |
VC = Videoconference.
Descriptive statistics for TICSM-PT (videoconference and telephone) and MMSE (face-to-face) total scores.
| TICSM-PT VC | TICSM-PT Telephone | MMSE | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SE) | N | Mean (SE) | N | Mean (SE) | N | |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 15.5 (1.09) | 27 | 14.6 (1.17) | 25 | 24.1 (0.96) | 28 |
| Female | 12.9 (0.95) | 40 | 13.6 (1.19) | 36 | 23.9 (0.94) | 41 |
| t(df), p | t (65) = 1.8, p = 0.075 | t (59) = 0.6, p = 0.575 | t (67) = 0.1, p = 0.883 | |||
| Age | ||||||
| Young old | 17.3 (0.83) | 35 | 17.1 (1.08) | 31 | 26.0 (0.71) | 36 |
| Oldest-old | 10.3 (0.85) | 32 | 10.7 (1.03) | 30 | 21.9 (1.07) | 33 |
| t(df), p | t (65) = 5.8, p = 0.001 | t (59) = 4.3, p ≤ 0.001 | t (67) = 3.3, p ≤ 0.001 | |||
| Education | ||||||
| Lower | 11.2 (0.90) | 28 | 11.5 (1.2) | 26 | 22.6 (1.08) | 29 |
| Higher | 15.9 (0.97) | 39 | 15.8 (1.06) | 35 | 25.0 (0.84) | 40 |
| t(df), p | t (65) = − 3.4, p = 0.001 | t (59) = − 2.6, p = 0.012 | t (67) = − 1.8, p = 0.070 | |||
| Group | ||||||
| Healthy | 15.9 (0.69) | 50 | 16.4 (0.86) | 43 | 26.2 (0.50) | 50 |
| AD | 8.1 (5.12) | 17 | 8.1 (1.14) | 18 | 18.1 (1.35) | 19 |
| t(df), p | t (65) = 5.6, p ≤ 0.001 | t (59) = − 5.4 , p ≤ 0.001 | t (67) = − 7.0, p ≤ 0.001 | |||
| Provenience/setting | ||||||
| Community | 18.8 (1.12) | 20 | 19.7 (1.41) | 16 | 27.2 (0.57) | 20 |
| Day care center | 14.0 (0.69) | 30 | 14.5 (0.93) | 27 | 25.6 (0.73) | 30 |
| t(df), p | t (48) = 3.8, p ≤ 0.001 | t (41) = 3.2, p = 0.003 | t (48) = 1.5, p = 0.129 | |||
TICSM-PT = Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status Modified–Portuguese–Portuguese; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; AD = Alzheimer's disease.
After exclusion/inclusion criteria of the n = 69 recruited individuals, n = 8 were not able to participate in the telephone assessment due to changes in contact information, health problems, death or persistent difficulties to be reached within the time frame. The videoconference evaluation was stopped for one AD participant due to major difficulties in focusing attention and because the patient was unable to respond to the instrument questions.
Non-AD participants.
Correlations and variance-covariance matrix between administration methods and socio-demographic variables.
TICSM-PT = Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status Modified–Portuguese–Portuguese; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; VC = Videoconference.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. The top-half (in grey) of the table represents the variance-covariance matrix; the bottom-half represents correlations between variables.
Prediction of TICSM-PT (videoconference and telephone) and MMSE scores based on socio-demographic characteristics.
| SE | Beta | t | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TICSM-PT videoconference | (Constant) | 17.2 | 2.62 | 6.56 | 0.000 | |
| Gender | –1.64 | 1.01 | –0.136 | –1.62 | 0.111 | |
| Age | –4.69 | 0.99 | –0.396 | –4.73 | 0.000 | |
| Education | 2.761 | 1.02 | 0.230 | 2.71 | 0.009 | |
| Group | 6.32 | 1.12 | 0.464 | 5.65 | 0.000 | |
| F(4,62) = 25.04, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.617; R2adj = 0.592 | ||||||
| TICSM-PT telephone | (Constant) | 14.99 | 3.34 | 4.48 | 0.000 | |
| Gender | –0.58 | 1.33 | –0.043 | –0.43 | 0.667 | |
| Age | –4.6 | 1.29 | –0.332 | –3.38 | 0.001 | |
| Education | 2.51 | 1.34 | 0.189 | 1.88 | 0.066 | |
| Group | 7.06 | 1.43 | 0.491 | 5.03 | 0.000 | |
| F(4,56) = 14.6, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.510; R2adj = 0.475 | ||||||
| MMSE | (Constant) | 20.89 | 2.77 | 7.53 | 0.000 | |
| Gender | 0.06 | 1.09 | 0.005 | 0.06 | 0.955 | |
| Age | –2.18 | 1.07 | –0.196 | –2.05 | 0.045 | |
| Education | 1.51 | 1.10 | 0.134 | 1.38 | 0.174 | |
| Group | 7.38 | 1.16 | 0.592 | 6.34 | 0.000 | |
| F(4,64) = 15.3, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.477; R2adj = 0.456 | ||||||
TICSM-PT = Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status Modified–Portuguese–Portuguese; MMSE = Mini Mental State Examination; VC = Videoconference.
Correlations and covariance matrix of TICSM-PT domains between videoconference and telephone administration.
| TICSM-PT videoconference | TICSM-PT telephone | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orientation | Registration | Attention | calculation | Comprehension | Language repetition | Delayed recall | ||
| Orientation | r | 0.866 | |||||
| Covariance | 0.902 | ||||||
| Registration | r | 0.668 | |||||
| Covariance | 0.685 | ||||||
| Attention | calculation | r | 0.851 | |||||
| Covariance | 0.858 | ||||||
| Comprehension | r | 0.670 | |||||
| Covariance | 0.673 | ||||||
| Language repetition | r | 0.605 | |||||
| Covariance | 0.599 | ||||||
| Delayed recall | r | 0.495 | |||||
| Covariance | 0.498 | ||||||
| M ± SE TC | 5.4 ± 0.23 | 2.1 ± 0.17 | 3.1 ± 0.29 | 1.6 ± 0.13 | 0.8 ± 0.05 | 0.9 ± 0.15 | |
| M ± SE telephone | 4.9 ± 0.27 | 2.4 ± 0.20 | 2.8 ± 0.27 | 2.2 ± 0.7 | 0.9 ± 0.05 | 1.2 ± 0.17 | |
| Paired | t(58) = 4.0, p < 0.001 | t(58) = − 2.1, p = 0.038 | t(58) = 1.8, p = 0.081 | t(58) = − 4.1, p < 0.001 | t(58) = − 1.1, p = 0.260 | t(58) = − 1.92,p = 0.060 | |
TICSM-PT = Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status Modified–Portuguese–Portuguese.
p < 0.01.
Fig. 2Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis of the TICSM-PT Videoconference. The area under the curve (AUC) statistic is 91.7% (95% confidence intervals: 84.5–98.8%).