van Gils Aniek M, Visser Leonie Nc, Hendriksen Heleen Ma, Georges Jean, Muller Majon, Bouwman Femke H, van der Flier Wiesje M, Rhodius-Meester Hanneke Fm
Department of Neurology, Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Center for Alzheimer Research, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
JMIR Form Res. 2021 Dec 3;5(12):e31053. doi: 10.2196/31053.
Computer tools based on artificial intelligence could aid clinicians in memory clinics in several ways, such as by supporting diagnostic decision-making, web-based cognitive testing, and the communication of diagnosis and prognosis.
This study aims to identify the preferences as well as the main barriers and facilitators related to using computer tools in memory clinics for all end users, that is, clinicians, patients, and care partners.
Between July and October 2020, we sent out invitations to a web-based survey to clinicians using the European Alzheimer's Disease Centers network and the Dutch Memory Clinic network, and 109 clinicians participated (mean age 45 years, SD 10; 53/109, 48.6% female). A second survey was created for patients and care partners. They were invited via Alzheimer Europe, Alzheimer's Society United Kingdom, Amsterdam Dementia Cohort, and Amsterdam Aging Cohort. A total of 50 patients with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or dementia (mean age 73 years, SD 8; 17/34, 34% female) and 46 care partners (mean age 65 years, SD 12; 25/54, 54% female) participated in this survey.
Most clinicians reported a willingness to use diagnostic (88/109, 80.7%) and prognostic (83/109, 76.1%) computer tools. User-friendliness (71/109, 65.1%); Likert scale mean 4.5, SD 0.7), and increasing diagnostic accuracy (76/109, 69.7%; mean 4.3, SD 0.7) were reported as the main factors stimulating the adoption of a tool. Tools should also save time and provide clear information on reliability and validity. Inadequate integration with electronic patient records (46/109, 42.2%; mean 3.8, SD 1.0) and fear of losing important clinical information (48/109, 44%; mean 3.7, SD 1.2) were most frequently indicated as barriers. Patients and care partners were equally positive about the use of computer tools by clinicians, both for diagnosis (69/96, 72%) and prognosis (73/96, 76%). In addition, most of them thought favorably regarding the possibility of using the tools themselves.
This study showed that computer tools in memory clinics are positively valued by most end users. For further development and implementation, it is essential to overcome the technical and practical barriers of a tool while paying utmost attention to its reliability and validity.
基于人工智能的计算机工具可以在多个方面帮助记忆门诊的临床医生,例如支持诊断决策、基于网络的认知测试以及诊断和预后的沟通。
本研究旨在确定记忆门诊中所有最终用户(即临床医生、患者和护理伙伴)使用计算机工具的偏好以及主要障碍和促进因素。
2020年7月至10月期间,我们向使用欧洲阿尔茨海默病中心网络和荷兰记忆门诊网络的临床医生发出了基于网络的调查邀请,109名临床医生参与了调查(平均年龄45岁,标准差10;53/109,48.6%为女性)。为患者和护理伙伴创建了第二项调查。通过欧洲阿尔茨海默病协会、英国阿尔茨海默病协会、阿姆斯特丹痴呆症队列和阿姆斯特丹衰老队列邀请他们。共有50名主观认知下降、轻度认知障碍或痴呆患者(平均年龄73岁,标准差8;17/34,34%为女性)和46名护理伙伴(平均年龄65岁,标准差12;25/54,54%为女性)参与了此次调查。
大多数临床医生表示愿意使用诊断(88/109,80.7%)和预后(83/109,76.1%)计算机工具。用户友好性(71/109,[此处有误,正确应为65.1%];李克特量表平均分为4.5,标准差0.7)和提高诊断准确性(76/109,69.7%;平均分为4.3,标准差0.7)被报告为刺激采用工具的主要因素。工具还应节省时间并提供关于可靠性和有效性的明确信息。与电子病历整合不足(46/109,42.2%;平均分为3.8,标准差1.0)和担心丢失重要临床信息(48/109,44%;平均分为3.7,标准差1.2)最常被指出是障碍。患者和护理伙伴对临床医生使用计算机工具进行诊断(69/96,72%)和预后(73/96,76%)同样持积极态度。此外,他们中的大多数人对自己使用这些工具的可能性也持肯定态度。
本研究表明,记忆门诊中的计算机工具受到大多数最终用户的积极评价。为了进一步开发和实施,必须克服工具的技术和实际障碍,同时要极其关注其可靠性和有效性。