Hagger-Johnson Gareth, Reimers Stian, Greenwood Darren C, Cade Janet, Gow Alan J
Department of Geography, University College London, London, UK
Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
BMJ Open. 2025 Mar 6;15(3):e092528. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092528.
Older adults may require additional support to comprehend written information due to inadequate health literacy, which involves components of cognitive function including reaction time. This study tested the acceptability of web-based reaction time testing in the UK Women's Cohort Study and possible sources of bias. Additionally, it assessed the association between health literacy and reaction time.
A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data from the UK Women's Cohort Study, a prospective cohort study.
The study involved women aged 48-85 without cancer registration who participated in the 2010/2011 follow-up (n=768).
Postal questionnaires and web-based cognitive function tests were administered in participants' homes.
Logistic regression identified predictors of volunteering for reaction time testing, used to calculate inverse probability weights for the primary analysis. Associations between health literacy and reaction time were estimated with linear regression models, adjusting for volunteer effects. Poisson regression models assessed associations between health literacy and choice reaction time errors.
The primary outcome was acceptability of web-based testing (response rate, task distress, task difficulty). Secondary outcomes were sources of volunteer bias and the association between health literacy and reaction time.
Web-based testing of cognitive function was attempted by 67% of women (maximum age 80), with little distress or difficulty reported. There was substantive volunteer bias. Women providing data on cognitive function were younger, had higher educational attainment and were higher in self-rated intelligence. Inadequate health literacy was associated with making fewer choice reaction time errors among those providing valid data but was also associated with not providing valid data. Health literacy was not associated with other aspects of reaction time (speed, variability). Additionally, selection bias may have restricted range on study variables, given that 2010/2011 volunteers were younger and more educated compared with those at recruitment in 1995/1998.
Brief web-based measures of cognitive function in the home are acceptable to women aged 48-80, but there are substantive selection effects and volunteer biases. Additionally, there are potentially vulnerable subgroups who provide poorer quality data.
由于健康素养不足,老年人可能需要额外支持来理解书面信息,健康素养涉及包括反应时间在内的认知功能组成部分。本研究在英国女性队列研究中测试了基于网络的反应时间测试的可接受性以及可能的偏差来源。此外,还评估了健康素养与反应时间之间的关联。
使用英国女性队列研究的数据进行横断面分析,该研究是一项前瞻性队列研究。
研究涉及年龄在48 - 85岁且未进行癌症登记的女性,她们参与了2010/2011年的随访(n = 768)。
通过邮寄问卷和基于网络的认知功能测试在参与者家中进行。
逻辑回归确定了参与反应时间测试的预测因素,用于计算主要分析的逆概率权重。使用线性回归模型估计健康素养与反应时间之间的关联,并对志愿者效应进行调整。泊松回归模型评估健康素养与选择反应时间错误之间的关联。
主要结局是基于网络测试的可接受性(响应率、任务困扰、任务难度)。次要结局是志愿者偏差来源以及健康素养与反应时间之间的关联。
67%的女性(最大年龄80岁)尝试了基于网络的认知功能测试,报告的困扰或难度较小。存在实质性的志愿者偏差。提供认知功能数据的女性更年轻,受教育程度更高,自我评定智力也更高。健康素养不足与在提供有效数据的人群中做出较少的选择反应时间错误相关,但也与未提供有效数据相关。健康素养与反应时间的其他方面(速度、变异性)无关。此外,鉴于2010/2011年的志愿者与1995/1998年招募时的志愿者相比更年轻且受教育程度更高,选择偏差可能限制了研究变量的范围。
对于48 - 80岁的女性来说,在家中进行简短的基于网络的认知功能测量是可接受的,但存在实质性的选择效应和志愿者偏差。此外,存在提供质量较差数据的潜在脆弱亚组。