Abstract
INTRODUCTION Paper-based screening examinations are well-validated but minimally scalable. If a DCA replicate paper-based screening, it would improve scalability while benefiting from their extensive validation.
METHODS We developed and evaluated the Rapid Online Cognitive Assessment (RoCA) against gold-standard paper-based tests in patients with a range of cognitive integrity (n = 46). Patient perception of the RoCA was also evaluated with post-examination survey.
RESULTS The RoCA classifies patients similarly to gold standard paper-based tests, with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.81 (95%CI 0.67-0.91, p < 0.001). It achieves a sensitivity of 0.94 (95%CI 0.80-1.0, p < 0.001). This was robust to multiple control analyses. 83% of patient respondents reported the RoCA as highly intuitive, with 95% perceiving it as adding value to their care.
DISCUSSION The RoCA may act as a simple and highly scalable cognitive screen.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by MITACS.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study has been conducted in accordance with the ethical standards. This study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Approval was achieved by the Research Ethics Board of the Bannatyne Campus, University of Manitoba (#HS25666).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data are available upon reasonable request.
