Patient Perspectives about Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding Post-anesthesia cognitive dysfunction in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

The administration of anesthesia during gastrointestinal endoscopy potentially contributes to post-anesthesia cognitive dysfunction (PACD), with detrimental impacts for cognitive function. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) towards PACD among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy in Wenzhou region.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted between June and August 2023, and recruited individuals undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Demographic data and KAP scores were collected through questionnaires. Pearson correlation analysis was applied to evaluate correlations between KAP scores, and logistic regression was utilized to identify influential factors.

RESULTS

We collected 405 valid questionnaires, with 54.57% being male and 29.88% aged 31-40 years. Mean KAP scores were 13.99 ± 4.80, 16.19 ± 2.35, and 15.61 ± 2.86, respectively (possible range: 0-16, 0-25, and 0-25). Pearson correlation analysis demonstrated significant positive correlations between knowledge and practice (r = 0.209, P < 0.001), attitude and practice (r = 0.233, P < 0.001), and knowledge and attitude (r = 0.328, P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression revealed negative associations of opting for standard gastrointestinal endoscopy (without anesthesia) with knowledge (OR = 0.227, 95%CI: 0.088-0.582, P = 0.002) and practice scores (OR = 0.336, 95%CI: 0.154-0.731, P = 0.006). Additionally, the presence of cognitive-related diseases or symptoms before undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy was negatively associated with knowledge scores (OR = 0.429, 95%CI: 0.225-0.818, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy demonstrated good knowledge, neutral attitudes, and moderate practices regarding PACD. Educational interventions and behavior modification are recommended, particularly for individuals with lower monthly income, undergoing standard gastrointestinal endoscopy, or experiencing cognitive-related conditions.

A qualitative study of informal caregiver perceptions of the benefits of an early dementia diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Current and former dementia policies in the United Kingdom (UK) recommend diagnosing dementia early, or as close to the onset of symptoms as possible. Informal caregivers play an important role in initiating the diagnostic process and providing support to people living with dementia. Therefore, this study aimed to explore caregiver perceptions of the benefits of an early diagnosis.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 current and former informal caregivers to people with dementia in the UK in 2020. We analysed the interviews using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Benefits of an early diagnosis included: (1) protecting the person with dementia from financial or physical harm, (2) timely decision-making, and (3) access to services and treatments following a diagnosis. We identified three conditions necessary for the benefits of an early diagnosis to be felt: (1) adequate prognostic information, (2) someone to advocate on behalf of the person with dementia, and (3) a willingness to seek and accept the diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we identified how diagnosing dementia close to the onset of symptoms could be beneficial and the conditions necessary for these benefits to be felt. The findings highlight the importance of an early diagnosis for enabling people with dementia and caregivers to make practical arrangements and to access services. Further research is needed to build on the findings of this study by exploring the perspectives of people with dementia and by including a larger, more diverse sample of caregivers.

Delivery of Neuropsychological Interventions for Adult and Older Adult Clinical Populations: An Australian Expert Working Group Clinical Guidance Paper

Delivery of neuropsychological interventions addressing the cognitive, psychological, and behavioural consequences of brain conditions is increasingly recognised as an important, if not essential, skill set for clinical neuropsychologists. It has the potential to add substantial value and impact to our role across clinical settings. However, there are numerous approaches to neuropsychological intervention, requiring different sets of skills, and with varying levels of supporting evidence across different diagnostic groups. This clinical guidance paper provides an overview of considerations and recommendations to help guide selection, delivery, and implementation of neuropsychological interventions for adults and older adults. We aimed to provide a useful source of information and guidance for clinicians, health service managers, policy-makers, educators, and researchers regarding the value and impact of such interventions. Considerations and recommendations were developed by an expert working group of neuropsychologists in Australia, based on relevant evidence and consensus opinion in consultation with members of a national clinical neuropsychology body. While the considerations and recommendations sit within the Australian context, many have international relevance. We include (i) principles important for neuropsychological intervention delivery (e.g. being based on biopsychosocial case formulation and person-centred goals); (ii) a description of clinical competencies important for effective intervention delivery; (iii) a summary of relevant evidence in three key cohorts: acquired brain injury, psychiatric disorders, and older adults, focusing on interventions with sound evidence for improving activity and participation outcomes; (iv) an overview of considerations for sustainable implementation of neuropsychological interventions as 'core business'; and finally, (v) a call to action.

Examining racial disparities in the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment

Black individuals are less likely to receive an accurate diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) than their White counterparts, possibly because diagnoses are typically made by a physician, often without reference to objective neuropsychological test data. We examined racial differences in actuarial MCI diagnoses among individuals diagnosed with MCI via semi-structured clinical interview (the Clinical Dementia Rating) to examine for possible biases in the diagnostic process. Participants were drawn from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set and included 491 individuals self-identifying as Black and 2,818 individuals self-identifying as White. Chi-square tests were used to examine racial differences in rates of low scores for each cognitive test (domains assessed included attention, processing speed/executive functioning, memory, language, and visual skills). Next, we tested for racial differences in probability of meeting actuarial criteria for MCI by race. Compared to Black participants diagnosed with MCI via clinical interview, White individuals diagnosed with MCI via clinical interview demonstrated significantly higher rates of low demographically-adjusted z-scores on tests of memory, attention, processing speed, and verbal fluency. Furthermore, White individuals were significantly more likely to meet actuarial criteria for MCI (71.60%) than Black individuals (57.90%). Results suggest there may be bias in MCI classification based on semi-structured interview, leading to over diagnosis among Black individuals and/or under diagnosis among White individuals. Examination of neuropsychological test data and use of actuarial approaches may reduce racial disparities in the diagnosis of MCI. Nonetheless, issues related to race-based norming and differential symptom presentations complicate interpretation of results.

A 'good dyadic relationship' between older couples with one having mild cognitive impairment: a Q-methodology

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment gradually brings changes to the relationship between older married couples. Therefore, this study aimed to understand the individual viewpoints of couple dyads on the important attributes of a 'good dyadic relationship' in the context of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and to explore if the congruencies and discrepancies in their perceptions related to the quality and closeness of their relationship and well-being.

METHODS

Q-methodology was used to reveal the perceptions of a 'good dyadic relationship' among couples with one having MCI. The participating couples were separated in two rooms and independently ranked 18 relationship attributes from least to most important on a 7-point Q-sort response grid. All participants also completed a post-sort interview and surveys to assess their psychological well-being and closeness. Q-sorts were analyzed using by-person factor analysis.

RESULTS

Forty people with MCI and forty spousal partners completed the Q-sort. Three viewpoints, accounting for 48% of the total variance, were identified and were labeled 'Provider,' 'Problem-solver,' and 'Partner.' Different viewpoints of a 'good dyadic relationship' primarily varied by perceived importance of commitment, dedication, tolerance, and personal space. Despite these differences, there was wide consensus that respecting each other and cherishing the current moment are two universally salient attributes of a good relationship across all viewpoints. Couples with discrepant views scored significantly higher on perceptions of the quality of the relationship and closeness with the partner.

CONCLUSIONS

This study advances the theoretical understanding of the dyadic relationship between couples with one having MCI, from both perspectives. MCI is a state in which couples can openly discuss their expectations. The findings provide practitioners with insights to work with couples experiencing MCI.

Assessing and disclosing test results for ‘mild cognitive impairment’: the perspective of old age psychiatrists in Scotland

Background

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a condition that exists between normal healthy ageing and dementia with an uncertain aetiology and prognosis. This uncertainty creates a complex dynamic between the clinicians’ conception of MCI, what is communicated to the individual about their condition, and how the individual responds to the information conveyed to them. The aim of this study was to explore clinicians’ views around the assessment and communication of MCI in memory clinics.

Method

As part of a larger longitudinal study looking at patients’ adjustment to MCI disclosure, we interviewed Old Age Psychiatrists at the five participating sites across Scotland. The study obtained ethics approvals and the interviews (carried out between Nov 2020–Jan 2021) followed a semi-structured schedule focusing on [1] how likely clinicians are to use the term MCI with patients; [2] what tests clinicians rely on and how much utility they see in them; and [3] how clinicians communicate risk of progression to dementia. The interviews were voice recorded and were analysed using reflective thematic analysis.

Results

Initial results show that most clinicians interviewed (Total N = 19) considered MCI to have significant limitations as a diagnostic term. Nevertheless, most clinicians reported using the term MCI (n = 15/19). Clinical history was commonly described as the primary aid in the diagnostic process and also to rule out functional impairment (which was sometimes corroborated by Occupational Therapy assessment). All clinicians reported using the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III as a primary assessment tool. Neuroimaging was frequently found to have minimal usefulness due to the neuroradiological reports being non-specific.

Conclusion

Our study revealed a mixture of approaches to assessing and disclosing test results for MCI. Some clinicians consider the condition as a separate entity among neurodegenerative disorders whereas others find the term unhelpful due to its uncertain prognosis. Clinicians report a lack of specific and sensitive assessment methods for identifying the aetiology of MCI in clinical practice. Our study demonstrates a broad range of views and therefore variability in MCI risk disclosure in memory assessment services which may impact the management of individuals with MCI.