Capturing learning curves with the multiday Boston Remote Assessment of Neurocognitive Health (BRANCH): Feasibility, reliability, and validity.

OBJECTIVE: Unsupervised remote digital cognitive assessment makes frequent testing feasible and allows for measurement of learning over repeated evaluations on participants' own devices. This provides the opportunity to derive individual multiday learning curve scores over short intervals. Here, we report feasibility, reliability, and validity, of a 7-day cognitive battery from the Boston Remote Assessment for Neurocognitive Health (Multiday BRANCH), an unsupervised web-based assessment. METHOD: Multiday BRANCH was administered remotely to 181 cognitively unimpaired older adults using their own electronic devices. For 7 consecutive days, participants completed three tests with associative memory components (Face-Name, Groceries-Prices, Digit Signs), using the same stimuli, to capture multiday learning curves for each test. We assessed the feasibility of capturing learning curves across the 7 days. Additionally, we examined the reliability and associations of learning curves with demographics, and traditional cognitive and subjective report measures. RESULTS: Multiday BRANCH was feasible with 96% of participants completing all study assessments; there were no differences dependent on type of device used (t = 0.71, p = .48) or time of day completed (t = -0.08, p = .94). Psychometric properties of the learning curves were sound including good test-retest reliability of individuals' curves (intraclass correlation = 0.94). Learning curves were positively correlated with in-person cognitive tests and subjective report of cognitive complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Multiday BRANCH is a feasible, reliable, and valid cognitive measure that may be useful for identifying subtle changes in learning and memory processes in older adults. In the future, we will determine whether Multiday BRANCH is predictive of the presence of preclinical Alzheimer's disease. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Smartphone-Based Neuropsychological Assessment in Parkinson's Disease: Feasibility, Validity, and Contextually Driven Variability in Cognition.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of neurodegenerative disorders demands methods of accessible assessment that reliably captures cognition in daily life contexts. We investigated the feasibility of smartphone cognitive assessment in people with Parkinson's disease (PD), who may have cognitive impairment in addition to motor-related problems that limit attending in-person clinics. We examined how daily-life factors predicted smartphone cognitive performance and examined the convergent validity of smartphone assessment with traditional neuropsychological tests. METHODS: Twenty-seven nondemented individuals with mild-moderate PD attended one in-lab session and responded to smartphone notifications over 10 days. The smartphone app queried participants 5x/day about their location, mood, alertness, exercise, and medication state and administered mobile games of working memory and executive function. RESULTS: Response rate to prompts was high, demonstrating feasibility of the approach. Between-subject reliability was high on both cognitive games. Within-subject variability was higher for working memory than executive function. Strong convergent validity was seen between traditional tests and smartphone working memory but not executive function, reflecting the latter's ceiling effects. Participants performed better on mobile working memory tasks when at home and after recent exercise. Less self-reported daytime sleepiness and lower PD symptom burden predicted a stronger association between later time of day and higher smartphone test performance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support feasibility and validity of repeat smartphone assessments of cognition and provide preliminary evidence of the effects of context on cognitive variability in PD. Further development of this accessible assessment method could increase sensitivity and specificity regarding daily cognitive dysfunction for PD and other clinical populations.

The evolution and geographic distribution of headache medicine fellowship programs and graduates: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the experiences, growth, and distribution of accredited headache medicine fellowships since accreditation began in 2007, and to examine the number and current practice locations of fellows graduated from those programs. BACKGROUND: There are no data on the distribution of headache fellowship programs and their graduates throughout the United States. METHODS: We surveyed directors of Headache Medicine fellowship programs accredited by the United Council of Neurologic Subspecialties as of April 1, 2014. We recorded the geographic locations of accredited programs and fellowship graduates and determined their distribution in relation to the overall and selected minority populations of US census divisions, regions, and states. RESULTS: In early 2014, there were 25 accredited Headache Medicine fellowship programs in the United States. Thirty-two (63%) US states lack a headache fellowship program and 24 (47%) do not have a practicing United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties fellowship graduate. Fifty-two of 96 fellows (54%) entered practice in the same state where they did their training. The northeastern United States has the best ratio of fellowship programs and graduates to population (0.28 and 0.35 per million inhabitants) and land area (6.38 and 8 per 100,000 square miles). The Pacific Northwest has the worst (0.05 and 0.02 fellowship programs and graduates per million inhabitants and 2.3 and 1.1 per 100,000 square miles). Fifty-five percent of the US Hispanic population lives in areas of the country with only 32% of practicing certified headache specialists, 28% of accredited fellowship programs, and which have attracted only 27% of fellowship graduates. Thirty-three percent of the US black population lives in areas with just 8% of fellowship programs and 27% of fellowship graduates. Fellowship directors report that funding for fellowship positions is an important challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The number of fellowship programs has increased dramatically since 2007, but their geographic distribution is uneven and so are the subsequent practice locations of fellow graduates. At present, the distribution of training programs and headache specialists is not well matched to the US population as a whole or to the location of important racial and ethnic minorities. Increasing the overall supply of headache specialists is important, but geographic inequalities in specialist distribution must also be addressed or disparities will increase.