Search

Objective:To assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Pictorial Fit-Frail Scale (PFFS) among patients, caregivers, nurses, and geriatricians in an outpatient memory clinic.Design:Observational study.Setting:A Canadian referral-based outpatient memory clinic.Participants:Fifty-one consecutive patients and/or their caregivers, as well as attending nurses and geriatricians.Measurements:Participants (patients, caregivers, nurses, and geriatricians) were asked to complete the PFFS based on the patient’s current level of functioning. Time-to-complete and level of assistance required was recorded. Participants also completed a demographic survey and patients’ medical history (including the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE], and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment [CGA]) was obtained via chart review.Results:Patient participants had a mean age of 77.3±10.1 years, and average MMSE of 22.0±7.0, and 53% were female. Participants were able to complete the PFFS with minimal assistance, and their average times to completion were 4:38±2:09, 3:11±1:16, 1:05±0:19, and 0:57±0:30 (mins:sec) for patients, caregivers, nurses, and geriatricians, respectively. Mean PFFS scores as rated by patients, caregivers, nurses, and geriatricians were 9.0±5.7, 13.1±6.6, 11.2±4.5, 11.9±5.9, respectively. Patients with low MMSE scores (0–24) took significantly longer to complete the scale and had higher PFFS scores. Inter-rater reliability between nurses and geriatricians was 0.74, but it was lower when assessments were done for patients with low MMSE scores (0.47, pConclusions:The PFFS is feasible, even among people with some slight cognitive impairment, though it may be less useful when patients with severe dementia administer it to themselves. Further, the PFFS may help inform clinicians about areas of concern as identified by patients, enabling them to contribute more to diagnostic and treatment decisions or helping with health tracking and care planning.

Objective:Cognitive reserve (CR) capacity can be viewed as the maximum processing potential of neural systems that support adaptive cognitive performance in age-related cognitive decline. CR is a complex construct that can only be measured indirectly. Proxy measures (e.g., psychosocial/lifestyle variables) are traditionally used to reflect CR. However, strong relationships have been observed between these measures and cognitive functions (e.g., executive function [EF], processing resources [PR], fluid/crystallized abilities); therefore, the organizational structure of indicators implicated in CR remains unclear. The objective of this study was to test a hypothetical, theoretical model of CR capacity that includes both traditional CR proxy indicators and measures of cognitive function [Satz et al. (2011).Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,33(1), 121–130], which remain, as yet, untested.Method:Construct validity of the model was investigated in healthy older adults through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) using data from the Maastricht Ageing Study (MAAS). A secondary CFA was conducted to validate the model using data from the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).Results:EFA and CFA in MAAS established a two-factor model comprising EF/PR and cumulative cognitive enrichment (CCE), which was further validated in a secondary analysis in TILDA. Convergent and discriminant validity was supported in MAAS (range ofR2= .228–.635; factor correlation confidence interval (CI) = .622, .740) and TILDA (range ofR2= .172–.899; factor correlation CI = .559, .624).Conclusions:A dual model of CR elucidated the relationships between hypothesized indicators of CR capacity and revealed a two-factor structure suggesting that both control (EF/PR) and representational processes (CCE) are involved in CR capacity.

Background Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is an individualized outcome measure that allows the setting of personalized treatment goals. We compared the responsiveness of GAS when individuals set only one goal instead of the recommended three or more goals. Methods We conducted exploratory analyses on data from two randomized controlled trials: the Video-Imaging Synthesis of Treating Alzheimer’s Disease (VISTA) (n = 130); and the Mobile Geriatric Assessment Team (MGAT) (n = 265). Independent t-tests and standardized response means (SRMs) were used to assess responsiveness of one- vs. multiple-goal GAS. Results In VISTA, clinician-rated multiple-goal GAS detected higher goal attainment in the intervention group (p = 0.01; SRM = 0.48). One-goal GAS, whether rated by patients or by clinicians, did not detect differences in goal attainment between groups (patient: p = 0.56, SRM = 0.10; clinician: p = 0.10, SRM = 0.29). In MGAT, multiple-goal GAS (outcome goals: p p p p Conclusion One-goal GAS detected significant change in response to a patient-centred, multi-domain care initiative. As such, in similar contexts, one-goal GAS may be an effective means of optimizing personalization and improving GAS feasibility through reduced administration time. However, it is not yet clear if one-goal GAS is responsive in the context of a pharmacological intervention and further research is recommended.

Background: In people with dementia, neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs), especially agitation, are associated with worse quality of life and caregiver burden. As NPSs may vary with illness severity, knowledge of how people with dementia and their caregivers describe and rate the importance of agitation symptoms can improve the understanding of the clinical meaningfulness of the manifestations of agitation. The internet provides new opportunities to better understand patient experiences, as patients and caregivers increasingly look to Web-based platforms as a means of managing symptoms. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine Web-based reports from a dementia symptom website to better understand the symptoms of agitation and explore how they are being targeted for monitoring by caregivers of people with dementia. Methods: The Dementia Guide website hosts a Web-based database used by caregivers (97%) and people with dementia (3%). From its 61 dementia symptoms, users can select relevant symptoms that they deem important to monitor or track the effects of treatment. We employed a staging algorithm to determine if individuals had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild, moderate, or severe dementia. Agitation was defined using terms consistent with the International Psychogeriatrics Association’s provisional consensus definition. We compared the proportion of people with NPSs and agitation across stages of dementia severity and studied how many agitation-defining descriptors were selected, and how often they occurred, by stage. Results: As of March 2017, 4121 people had used the tracking tool, of whom 2577 provided sufficient data to allow disease severity staging. NPSs were tracked by 2127/2577 (82.54%) and agitation by 1898/2577 (73.65%). The proportion in whom agitation was tracked increased with increasing cognitive impairment: 68.5% (491/717) in people with MCI, and 72.50% (754/1040), 73.3% (378/516), and 90.5% (275/304) in mild, moderate, and severe dementia, respectively (χ23=54.9; P

Objectives:Misplacing objects is often reported as a clinically important symptom in dementia. Here we explored misplacing objects in relation to dementia type and stage in an online sample of individuals with dementia and their caregivers.Methods:Participants were recruited from www.dementiaguide.com, a web-based tracker for common dementia symptoms. Users provided information about symptoms that they selected as important for monitoring. We analysed cross-sectional data from respondents who tracked at least three symptoms, which allowed for staging dementia severity.Results:Of 2,775 users with three-plus symptoms, 787 (28%) identified misplacing objects for symptom tracking. Misplacing objects was monitored by users across all stages of dementia, but was more prevalent in mild and severe dementia. Three common clinical subtypes of misplacing were investigated: lost & found (forgetting the location of items), hidden away (hiding items so others would not find them), and odd places (putting items in usual spots). Of the 787, 96% targeted lost & found, the most frequent type. Odd places (targeted in 56%) significantly increased with dementia severity (p < 0.001). Misplacing objects was most strongly associated with the symptoms of interaction with strangers (OR 4.60, 95% CI: 3.20-6.62), reading (3.68: 2.86-4.73), shopping (3.55: 2.73-4.61) and travel/vacationing (3.31: 2.54-4.31).Conclusions:Misplacing objects was most often selected for tracking in mild and severe stages of dementia. As disease advances, misplacing more often reflects odd placement of objects rather than their simple loss. Misplacing objects may be a clinically important therapeutic target for improving patients’ quality of life and lessening caregiver burden.