[A survey study towards the opinions of clinicians, patients and care partners regarding computer tools in the memory clinic: sense or nonsense?]

Q4 Nursing
Aniek M van Gils, Leonie Nc Visser, Heleen Ma Hendriksen, Majon Muller, Femke H Bouwman, Wiesje M van der Flier, Hanneke Fm Rhodius-Meester
{"title":"[A survey study towards the opinions of clinicians, patients and care partners regarding computer tools in the memory clinic: sense or nonsense?]","authors":"Aniek M van Gils,&nbsp;Leonie Nc Visser,&nbsp;Heleen Ma Hendriksen,&nbsp;Majon Muller,&nbsp;Femke H Bouwman,&nbsp;Wiesje M van der Flier,&nbsp;Hanneke Fm Rhodius-Meester","doi":"10.36613/tgg.1875-6832/2023.01.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Computer tools based on artificial intelligence could aid clinicians in memory clinics by supporting diagnostic decision-making and communicating diagnosis and prognosis. We aimed to identify preferences of end-users, and barriers and facilitators for using computer tools in memory clinics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between July and October 2020, we invited European clinicians (n=109, age 45±10y; 47% female) to participate in an online questionnaire. A second questionnaire was sent to patients (n=50, age 73±8y, 34% female) with subjective cognitive complaints (SCD, n=21), mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n=16) and dementia (n=13) and care partners (n=46, 65±12y, 54% female).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The vast majority (75%) of all participants positively valued the use of computer tools in memory clinics. Facilitating factors included user-friendliness and increased diagnostic accuracy. Barriers included (doubts relating) reliability and validity of the tool and loss of clinical autonomy. The participants believe that tools should be used in addition to the current working method and not as a replacement.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our results provide an important step in the iterative process of developing computer tools for memory clinics in co-creation with end-users and could guide successful implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":39945,"journal":{"name":"Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36613/tgg.1875-6832/2023.01.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Computer tools based on artificial intelligence could aid clinicians in memory clinics by supporting diagnostic decision-making and communicating diagnosis and prognosis. We aimed to identify preferences of end-users, and barriers and facilitators for using computer tools in memory clinics.

Methods: Between July and October 2020, we invited European clinicians (n=109, age 45±10y; 47% female) to participate in an online questionnaire. A second questionnaire was sent to patients (n=50, age 73±8y, 34% female) with subjective cognitive complaints (SCD, n=21), mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n=16) and dementia (n=13) and care partners (n=46, 65±12y, 54% female).

Results: The vast majority (75%) of all participants positively valued the use of computer tools in memory clinics. Facilitating factors included user-friendliness and increased diagnostic accuracy. Barriers included (doubts relating) reliability and validity of the tool and loss of clinical autonomy. The participants believe that tools should be used in addition to the current working method and not as a replacement.

Discussion: Our results provide an important step in the iterative process of developing computer tools for memory clinics in co-creation with end-users and could guide successful implementation.

一项关于临床医生、患者和护理伙伴对记忆诊所计算机工具看法的调查研究:有意义还是无稽之谈?]
简介:基于人工智能的计算机工具可以通过支持诊断决策和沟通诊断和预后来帮助记忆诊所的临床医生。我们的目的是确定最终用户的偏好,以及在记忆诊所中使用计算机工具的障碍和促进因素。方法:2020年7月至10月,我们邀请了欧洲临床医生(n=109,年龄45±10y;47%的女性)参与在线问卷调查。第二份问卷发给主观认知主诉(SCD, n=21)、轻度认知障碍(MCI, n=16)、痴呆(n=13)患者(n=46, 65±12y, 54%女性)(n=50,年龄73±8y,女性34%)。结果:绝大多数(75%)的参与者积极评价计算机工具在记忆诊所的使用。促进因素包括用户友好性和诊断准确性的提高。障碍包括(相关疑虑)工具的可靠性和有效性以及临床自主权的丧失。与会者认为,工具应作为现有工作方法的补充,而不是替代。讨论:我们的结果为与最终用户共同创造的记忆诊所开发计算机工具的迭代过程提供了重要的一步,并可以指导成功的实施。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信