BookR: School of Health Core Facilities Booking

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a drastic shift in the practice of research and clinical services. It has been noted that cognition measured via in-person versus remote methods differ substantially, and it is possible that subjective and experiential differences exist between modalities.

Objective: The aim of the study is to explore the perceptions of both researchers and older adult participants on the experience of remotely conducted research using a cognitive screener.

Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis of the experience of engaging in remote research from both the participant (n=10) and researcher (n=4) perspectives. The research interaction was framed through teleadministration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind (suitable for telephone administration) and administration of a subsequent semistructured debriefing interview. Participant perspectives were garnered during debriefing interviews, while researcher insights were collected via self-reported qualitative field notes completed following each research session.

Results: Data aggregated into themes of barriers and facilitators from the lenses of both participants and researchers. Participants noted facilitators including short instrument length, convenience, and presession contact; barriers included the length of the interaction, some tasks being more challenging on the phone, and the potential for participant dishonesty. Research assistants noted several facilitators: instrument length, rapport building, ability to prepare for and record sessions, and comfort with the protocol; barriers were items with too many response options, telephone issues (eg, response delays), and concerns about participant comprehension.

Conclusions: These results suggest remote telephone-delivered cognitive screening tools as a feasible and acceptable method of research inquiry. The findings provide a starting point for the inclusion of diverse populations in research to capture underrepresented groups whose input would immensely benefit our understanding of remotely delivered cognitive screening measures. Further, we offer materials (eg, checklists), which can be used in future investigations to promote future inclusive research and increase generalizability.