[A survey study towards the opinions of clinicians, patients and care partners regarding computer tools in the memory clinic: sense or nonsense?] / Een vragenlijstonderzoek naar de mening van clinici, patiënten en naasten over computertools in de geheugenpolikliniek: zin of onzin?.

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.

Assessing the Views of Professionals, Patients, and Care Partners Concerning the Use of Computer Tools in Memory Clinics: International Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Development and Usability of ADappt: Web-Based Tool to Support Clinicians, Patients, and Caregivers in the Diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease.

BACKGROUND: As a result of advances in diagnostic testing in the field of Alzheimer disease (AD), patients are diagnosed in earlier stages of the disease, for example, in the stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). This poses novel challenges for a clinician during the diagnostic workup with regard to diagnostic testing itself, namely, which tests are to be performed, but also on how to engage patients in this decision and how to communicate test results. As a result, tools to support decision making and improve risk communication could be valuable for clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to present the design, development, and testing of a Web-based tool for clinicians in a memory clinic setting and to ascertain whether this tool can (1) facilitate the interpretation of biomarker results in individual patients with MCI regarding their risk of progression to dementia, (2) support clinicians in communicating biomarker test results and risks to MCI patients and their caregivers, and (3) support clinicians in a process of shared decision making regarding the diagnostic workup of AD. METHODS: A multiphase mixed-methods approach was used. Phase 1 consisted of a qualitative needs assessment among professionals, patients, and caregivers; phase 2, consisted of an iterative process of development and the design of the tool (ADappt); and phase 3 consisted of a quantitative and qualitative assessment of usability and acceptability of ADappt. Across these phases, co-creation was realized via a user-centered qualitative approach with clinicians, patients, and caregivers. RESULTS: In phase 1, clinicians indicated the need for risk calculation tools and visual aids to communicate test results to patients. Patients and caregivers expressed their needs for more specific information on their risk for developing AD and related consequences. In phase 2, we developed the content and graphical design of ADappt encompassing 3 modules: a risk calculation tool, a risk communication tool including a summary sheet for patients and caregivers, and a conversation starter to support shared decision making regarding the diagnostic workup. In phase 3, ADappt was considered to be clear and user-friendly. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in a memory clinic setting can use ADappt, a Web-based tool, developed using multiphase design and co-creation, for support that includes an individually tailored interpretation of biomarker test results, communication of test results and risks to patients and their caregivers, and shared decision making on diagnostic testing.