探索通过电话使用蒙特利尔认知评估-盲法进行和参与远程研究的定性体验:老年人横断面研究》。

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Shirley Dumassais, Karl Singh Grewal, Gabrielle Aubin, Megan O'Connell, Natalie A Phillips, Walter Wittich
{"title":"探索通过电话使用蒙特利尔认知评估-盲法进行和参与远程研究的定性体验:老年人横断面研究》。","authors":"Shirley Dumassais, Karl Singh Grewal, Gabrielle Aubin, Megan O'Connell, Natalie A Phillips, Walter Wittich","doi":"10.2196/58537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic caused a drastic shift in the practice of research and clinical services. It has been noted that cognition measured via in-person versus remote methods differ substantially, and it is possible that subjective and experiential differences exist between modalities.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study is to explore the perceptions of both researchers and older adult participants on the experience of remotely conducted research using a cognitive screener.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a thematic analysis of the experience of engaging in remote research from both the participant (n=10) and researcher (n=4) perspectives. The research interaction was framed through teleadministration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind (suitable for telephone administration) and administration of a subsequent semistructured debriefing interview. Participant perspectives were garnered during debriefing interviews, while researcher insights were collected via self-reported qualitative field notes completed following each research session.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data aggregated into themes of barriers and facilitators from the lenses of both participants and researchers. Participants noted facilitators including short instrument length, convenience, and presession contact; barriers included the length of the interaction, some tasks being more challenging on the phone, and the potential for participant dishonesty. Research assistants noted several facilitators: instrument length, rapport building, ability to prepare for and record sessions, and comfort with the protocol; barriers were items with too many response options, telephone issues (eg, response delays), and concerns about participant comprehension.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest remote telephone-delivered cognitive screening tools as a feasible and acceptable method of research inquiry. The findings provide a starting point for the inclusion of diverse populations in research to capture underrepresented groups whose input would immensely benefit our understanding of remotely delivered cognitive screening measures. Further, we offer materials (eg, checklists), which can be used in future investigations to promote future inclusive research and increase generalizability.</p>","PeriodicalId":14841,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Formative Research","volume":"8 ","pages":"e58537"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Qualitative Experiences of Administering and Participating in Remote Research via Telephone Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind: Cross-Sectional Study of Older Adults.\",\"authors\":\"Shirley Dumassais, Karl Singh Grewal, Gabrielle Aubin, Megan O'Connell, Natalie A Phillips, Walter Wittich\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/58537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic caused a drastic shift in the practice of research and clinical services. It has been noted that cognition measured via in-person versus remote methods differ substantially, and it is possible that subjective and experiential differences exist between modalities.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study is to explore the perceptions of both researchers and older adult participants on the experience of remotely conducted research using a cognitive screener.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a thematic analysis of the experience of engaging in remote research from both the participant (n=10) and researcher (n=4) perspectives. The research interaction was framed through teleadministration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind (suitable for telephone administration) and administration of a subsequent semistructured debriefing interview. Participant perspectives were garnered during debriefing interviews, while researcher insights were collected via self-reported qualitative field notes completed following each research session.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data aggregated into themes of barriers and facilitators from the lenses of both participants and researchers. Participants noted facilitators including short instrument length, convenience, and presession contact; barriers included the length of the interaction, some tasks being more challenging on the phone, and the potential for participant dishonesty. Research assistants noted several facilitators: instrument length, rapport building, ability to prepare for and record sessions, and comfort with the protocol; barriers were items with too many response options, telephone issues (eg, response delays), and concerns about participant comprehension.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest remote telephone-delivered cognitive screening tools as a feasible and acceptable method of research inquiry. The findings provide a starting point for the inclusion of diverse populations in research to capture underrepresented groups whose input would immensely benefit our understanding of remotely delivered cognitive screening measures. Further, we offer materials (eg, checklists), which can be used in future investigations to promote future inclusive research and increase generalizability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Formative Research\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"e58537\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Formative Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/58537\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Formative Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/58537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:COVID-19 大流行导致了研究和临床服务实践的急剧转变。人们注意到,通过亲临现场和远程方法测量的认知能力有很大不同,而且不同方式之间可能存在主观和经验上的差异:本研究旨在探讨研究人员和老年参与者对使用认知筛选器进行远程研究的体验的看法:我们从参与者(10 人)和研究者(4 人)的角度对参与远程研究的体验进行了专题分析。研究互动是通过远程管理蒙特利尔认知评估盲法(适合电话管理)和随后的半结构化汇报访谈来实现的。参与者的观点是在汇报访谈中收集的,而研究人员的见解则是通过在每个研究环节后完成的自我报告定性现场笔记收集的:结果:从参与者和研究人员的视角出发,数据汇聚成障碍和促进因素的主题。参与者注意到的促进因素包括工具长度短、方便和会前联系;障碍包括互动时间长、某些任务在电话中更具挑战性以及参与者可能不诚实。研究助理注意到了几个有利因素:问卷长度、建立融洽关系、准备和记录会议的能力以及对协议的适应性;障碍是项目中的回答选项过多、电话问题(如回答延迟)以及对被试理解能力的担忧:这些结果表明,远程电话认知筛查工具是一种可行且可接受的研究调查方法。研究结果为将不同人群纳入研究提供了一个起点,以捕捉代表人数不足的群体,他们的意见将极大地促进我们对远程认知筛查措施的理解。此外,我们还提供了可用于未来调查的材料(如核对表),以促进未来的包容性研究并提高可推广性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring the Qualitative Experiences of Administering and Participating in Remote Research via Telephone Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind: Cross-Sectional Study of Older Adults.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a drastic shift in the practice of research and clinical services. It has been noted that cognition measured via in-person versus remote methods differ substantially, and it is possible that subjective and experiential differences exist between modalities.

Objective: The aim of the study is to explore the perceptions of both researchers and older adult participants on the experience of remotely conducted research using a cognitive screener.

Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of the experience of engaging in remote research from both the participant (n=10) and researcher (n=4) perspectives. The research interaction was framed through teleadministration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind (suitable for telephone administration) and administration of a subsequent semistructured debriefing interview. Participant perspectives were garnered during debriefing interviews, while researcher insights were collected via self-reported qualitative field notes completed following each research session.

Results: Data aggregated into themes of barriers and facilitators from the lenses of both participants and researchers. Participants noted facilitators including short instrument length, convenience, and presession contact; barriers included the length of the interaction, some tasks being more challenging on the phone, and the potential for participant dishonesty. Research assistants noted several facilitators: instrument length, rapport building, ability to prepare for and record sessions, and comfort with the protocol; barriers were items with too many response options, telephone issues (eg, response delays), and concerns about participant comprehension.

Conclusions: These results suggest remote telephone-delivered cognitive screening tools as a feasible and acceptable method of research inquiry. The findings provide a starting point for the inclusion of diverse populations in research to capture underrepresented groups whose input would immensely benefit our understanding of remotely delivered cognitive screening measures. Further, we offer materials (eg, checklists), which can be used in future investigations to promote future inclusive research and increase generalizability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Formative Research Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
579
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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