SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Development of the Digital Inclusion Questionnaire (DIQUEST) in Parkinson's Disease.

Neurol Sci · 2023-10-16

DOI: 10.1007/s10072-023-07090-3PMID: 37843691

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundNo tool is currently able to measure digital inclusion in clinical populations suitable for telemedicine. We developed the "Digital Inclusion Questionnaire" (DIQUEST) to estimate access and skills in Parkinson's Disease (PD) patients and verified its properties with a pilot study.MethodsThirty PD patients completed the initial version of the DIQUEST along with the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (MDPQ) and a practical computer task. A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was conducted to define the DIQUEST factor structure and remove less informative items. We used Cronbach's α to measure internal reliability and Spearman's correlation test to determine the convergent and predictive validity with the MDPQ and the practical task, respectively.ResultsThe final version of the DIQUEST consisted of 20 items clustering in five components: "advanced skills," "navigation skills," "basic skills/knowledge," "physical access," and "economical access." All components showed high reliability (α > 0.75) as did the entire questionnaire (α = 0.94). Correlation analysis demonstrated high convergent (rho: 0.911; pConclusionsWe have here presented the development of the DIQUEST as a screening tool to assess the level of digital inclusion, particularly addressing the access and skills domains. Future studies are needed for its validation beyond PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.