32 Influence of Prior Experience with Computer-Based Technology on Tablet-Based Neurocognitive Test Performance: Data from a sample of cognitively impaired South African older adults

Abstract

Objective:

The global prevalence of persons living with dementia will soon exceed 50 million. Most of these individuals reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In South Africa, one such LMIC, the physician-to-patient ratio of 9:10 000 severely limits the capacity of clinicians to screen, assess, diagnose, and treat dementias. One way to address this limitation is by using mobile health (mHealth) platforms to scale-up neurocognitive testing. In this paper, we describe one such platform, a brief tablet-based cognitive assessment tool (NeuroScreen) that can be administered by lay health-providers. It may help identify patients with cognitive impairment (related, for instance, to dementia) and thereby improve clinical care and outcomes. However, there is a lack of data regarding (a) the acceptability of this novel technology for delivery of neurocognitive assessments in LMIC-resident older adults, and (b) the influence of technology-use experience on NeuroScreen performance of LMIC-resident older adults. This study aimed to fill that knowledge gap, using a sample of cognitively impaired South African older adults.

Participants and Methods:

Participants were 60 older adults (63.33% female; 91.67% right-handed; age M = 68.90 years, SD = 9.42, range = 50-83), all recruited from geriatric and memory clinics in Cape Town, South Africa. In a single 1-hour session, they completed the entire NeuroScreen battery (Trail Making, Number Speed, Finger Tapping, Visual Discrimination, Number Span Forward, Number Span Backward, List Learning, List Recall) as well as a study-specific questionnaire assessing acceptability of NeuroScreen use and overall experience and comfort with computer-based technology. We summed across 11 questionnaire items to derive a single variable capturing technology-use experience, with higher scores indicating more experience.

Results:

Almost all participants (93.33%) indicated that NeuroScreen was easy to use. A similar number (90.00%) indicated they would be comfortable completing NeuroScreen at routine doctor's visits. Only 6.67% reported feeling uncomfortable using a tablet, despite about three-quarters (76.67%) reporting never having used a tablet with a touchscreen before. Almost one in five participants (18.33%) reported owning a computer, 10.00% a tablet, and 70.00% a smartphone. Correlations between test performance and technology-use experience were statistically significant (or strongly tended toward significance) for most NeuroScreen subtests that assessed higherorder cognitive functioning and that required the participant to manipulate the tablet themselves: Trail Making 2 (a measure of cognitive switching ability), r = .24, p = .05; Visual Discrimination A (complex processing speed [number-symbol matching]), r = .38, p = .002; Visual Discrimination B (pattern recognition), r = .37, p = .004; Number Speed (simple information processing speed), r = .36, p = .004. For the most part, there were no such significant associations when the NeuroScreen subtest required only verbal input from the participant (i.e., on the list learning and number span tasks).

Conclusions:

NeuroScreen, a tablet-based neurocognitive screening tool, appears feasible for use among older South Africans, even if they are cognitively impaired and have limited technological familiarity. However, test performance might be influenced by amount of technology-use experience; clinicians using the battery must consider this in their interpretations.