Search

There is a need for validated measures of attention for use in longitudinal studies of older populations. We studied 249 participants aged 80 to 101 years using the population-based MOBILIZE Boston Study. Four subscales of the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA) were included, measuring attention switching, selective, sustained and divided attention and a neuropsychological battery including validated measures of multiple cognitive domains measuring attention, executive function and memory. The TEA previously has not been validated in persons aged 80 and older. Among participants who completed the TEA, scores on other attentional measures strongly with TEA domains (R=.60-.70). Proportions of participants with incomplete TEA subscales ranged from 8% (selective attention) to 19% (attentional switching). Reasons for not completing TEA tests included failure to comprehend test instructions despite repetition and practice. These results demonstrate the challenges and potential value of the Test of Everyday Attention in studies of very old populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To establish Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores that correspond to well-established cut-points on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: General medical service of a large teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 75 and older (N = 199; mean age 84, 63% female). MEASUREMENTS: The MoCA (range 0-30) and the MMSE (range 0-30) were administered within 2 hours of each other. The Abbreviated MoCA (A-MoCA; range 0-22) was calculated from the full MoCA. Scores from the three tests were analyzed using equipercentile equating, a statistical method for determining comparable scores on different tests of a similar construct by estimating per-centile equivalents. RESULTS: MoCA scores were lower (mean 19.3 ± 5.8) than MMSE scores (mean 24.1 ± 6.6). Traditional MMSE cut-points of 27 for mild cognitive impairment and 23 for dementia corresponded to MoCA scores of 23 and 17, respectively. CONCLUSION: Scores on the full and abbreviated versions of the MoCA can be linked directly to the MMSE. The MoCA may be more sensitive to changes in cognitive performance at higher levels of functioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The majority of scales to measure family member distress in dementia are designed for community settings and do not capture the unique burdens of the nursing home (NH) environment. We report the psychometric properties of a new Family Distress in Advanced Dementia Scale for use in the NH setting. Design, Setting, Participants Cross-sectional questionnaire of 130 family member health care proxies of NH residents with advanced dementia in 31 Boston-area NHs. Methods Thirty-one initial items were evaluated, measuring the frequency over the past 3 months of sources of distress. Exploratory factor analysis identified domains of distress; Cronbach's alpha was computed for each domain. Associations between the domains and other measures were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients, including measures of depression (PHQ-9), satisfaction with care (Satisfaction with Care at the End-of-Life in Dementia [SWC-EOLD]), and caregiver burden (Zarit Burden Interview short version). Results Factor analysis suggested 3 domains: emotional distress (9 items), dementia preparedness (5 items), and NH relations (7 items). Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.82, 0.75, and 0.83 respectively. The PHQ-9 correlated most strongly with the emotional distress factor (r = 0.34), the SWC-EOWD correlated most strongly with the NH relations factor (r = 0.35), as did the Zarit Burden Scale (r = 0.50). Conclusions The Family Distress in Advanced Dementia Scale encompasses 3 domains of distress. This scale represents a much needed tool to assess distress among family members of NH residents with advanced dementia and provides a metric to evaluate interventions in the population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although survivorship care recommendations exist, there is limited evidence about current practices and patient preferences. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was completed by survivors of lymphoma, head and neck, and gastrointestinal cancers at an academic cancer center. The survey was designed to capture patients' reports of receipt of survivorship care planning and their attitudes, preferences, and perceived needs regarding content and timing of cancer survivorship care information. Elements of survivorship care were based on the Institute of Medicine recommendations, literature review, and clinical experience. Results: Eighty-five survivors completed the survey (response rate, 81%). More than 75% reported receiving a follow-up plan or appointment schedule, a monitoring plan for scans and blood tests, information about short- and long-term adverse effects, and a detailed treatment summary. These elements were reported as desired by more than 90% of responders. Approximately 40% of these elements were only verbally provided. Although more than 70% described not receiving information about employment, smoking cessation, sexual health, genetic counseling, fertility, or financial resources, these elements were not reported as desired. However, “strategies to cope with the fear of recurrence” was most often omitted, yet desired by most respondents. Survivors' preferences regarding optimal timing for information varied depending on the element. Conclusions: Our study suggests that cancer survivorship care planning is heterogeneous and may not need to be comprehensive, but rather tailored to individual survivors' needs. Providers must assess patient needs early and continue to revisit them during the cancer care continuum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]