% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Grazia:169048,
      author       = {Grazia, Alice and Altomare, Daniele and Preis, Lukas and
                      Monsch, Andreas U and Cappa, Stefano F and Gauthier, Serge
                      and Frölich, Lutz and Winblad, Bengt and Welsh-Bohmer,
                      Kathleen A and Teipel, Stefan J and Boccardi, Marina},
      title        = {{F}easibility of a standard cognitive assessment in
                      {E}uropean academic memory clinics.},
      journal      = {Alzheimer's and dementia},
      volume       = {19},
      number       = {6},
      issn         = {1552-5260},
      address      = {Hoboken, NJ},
      publisher    = {Wiley},
      reportid     = {DZNE-2022-01770},
      pages        = {2276-2286},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {Standardized cognitive assessment would enhance diagnostic
                      reliability across memory clinics. An expert consensus
                      adapted the Uniform Dataset (UDS)-3 for European centers,
                      the clinician's UDS (cUDS). This study assessed its
                      implementation acceptability and feasibility.We developed a
                      survey investigating barriers, facilitators, and willingness
                      to implement the cUDS. With a mixed-methods design, we
                      analyzed data from academic memory clinics.Seventy-eight
                      percent of responding clinicians were experienced
                      neuropsychologists/psychologists and $22\%$ were medical
                      specialists coming from 18 European countries. Sixty-five
                      percent clinicians were willing to implement cUDS. General
                      barriers related to implementation $(43\%)$ and
                      clinical-methodological domains $(21\%).$ Favorable
                      clinicians reported finances $(15\%)$ and digitalization
                      $(9\%)$ as facilitating, but unavailability of local norms
                      $(23\%)$ as hindering. Unfavorable clinicians reported
                      logistical $(23\%)$ and time issues $(18\%).Despite$
                      challenges, data showed moderate clinicians' acceptability
                      and requirements to improve feasibility. Nonetheless, these
                      results come from academic clinicians. The next steps will
                      require feasibility evaluation in non-academic contexts.},
      keywords     = {Humans / Feasibility Studies / Reproducibility of Results /
                      Surveys and Questionnaires / Cognition / Europe /
                      Alzheimer's disease (Other) / implementation feasibility
                      (Other) / mild cognitive impairment (Other) / mixed-methods
                      (Other) / standard cognitive assessment (Other)},
      cin          = {AG Boccardi / AG Teipel},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-2719)5000062 / I:(DE-2719)1510100},
      pnm          = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:36453876},
      doi          = {10.1002/alz.12830},
      url          = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/169048},
}