Background: Neurocognitive impairments are common among brain tumor patients, and may impact patients' awareness of performance in instrumental activities in daily life (IADL). We examined... Show moreBackground: Neurocognitive impairments are common among brain tumor patients, and may impact patients' awareness of performance in instrumental activities in daily life (IADL). We examined differences between patient- and proxy-reported assessments of the patient's IADL, and whether the level of (dis)agreement is associated with neurocognitive impairments. Methods Brain tumor patients and their proxies completed the phase 3 version of the EORTC IADL-BN32 questionnaire measuring IADL, and patients completed six neurocognitive measures. Patient-proxy difference scores in IADL were compared between patients who were defined as neurocognitively impaired (>= 2 neurocognitive measures >= 2.0 standard deviations below healthy controls) and non-neurocognitively impaired. With multinomial logistic regression analyses we examined if neurocognitive variables were independently associated with patient-proxy disagreement in IADL ratings. Results Patients (n = 81) did not systematically (P < .01) rate IADL outcomes different than their proxies. Proxies did report more problems on 19/32 individual items and all five scales. This effect was more apparent in dyads with a neurocognitively impaired patient (n = 37), compared to dyads with non-neurocognitively impaired patients (n = 44). Multinomial logistic regression analyses showed that several neurocognitive variables (e.g., cognitive flexibility and verbal fluency) were independently associated with disagreement between patients and proxies on different scales. Conclusion Neurocognitive deficits seem to play a role in the discrepancies between brain tumor patients and their proxies assessment of patient's level of IADL. Although replication of our results is needed, our findings suggests that caution is warranted in interpreting self-reported IADL by patients with neurocognitive impairment, and that such self-reports should be supplemented with proxy ratings. Show less
Heus, I.; Weezenberg, D.; Severijnen, S.; Vlieland, T.V.; Holst, M. van der 2020
Purpose:Although measuring outcome of rehabilitation in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder is considered important no consensus exists on which instruments to use. An important... Show morePurpose:Although measuring outcome of rehabilitation in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder is considered important no consensus exists on which instruments to use. An important attribute of a measurement instrument would be that it is sensitive to clinical changes. The aim of this prospective, observational study was therefore to investigate the responsiveness of six potentially suitable instruments. Methods:Forty-one children (34 boys, median age 7.8 years, Inter Quartile Range: 7.2-9.2) receiving multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment for Developmental Coordination Disorder were included (mean treatment time: 32.8 h, Standard Deviation 7.3). The following instruments were applied before and after rehabilitation: Movement-Asessment-Battery-Children-2 (MABC-2), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Systematic detection writing problems (SOS-2-NL), DCD-daily, Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), and TNO-AZL children's Quality of Life questionnaire (TACQOL)). Change-scores (paired t-test/Wilcoxon-test) and responsiveness (Effect-sizes and Standardized-Response-Means) were calculated. Results:Significant differences over time were found for the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, DCDdaily and Movement-Asessment-Battery-Children-2 (p < 0.05). The responsiveness of these instruments was moderate-high (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure-performance Effect-Size:1.70/Standardized-Response-Mean:1.81, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure-satisfaction Effect-Size:1.65/Standardized-Response-Mean 1.53; DCDdaily-total-score Effect-Size:0.40/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.62, DCDdaily-Quality-score Effect-Size:0.74/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.89, DCDdaily-time-score Effect-Size:0.21/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.43; MABC-2-total-score Effect-Size:0.42/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.43, MABC-2-Ball-skills-score Effect-Size:0.33/Standardized-Response-Mean:0.36). Systematic detection of writing problems (SOS-2-NL), Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and TNO-AZL children's Quality of Life questionnaire (TACQOL) were not responsive to change. Conclusion:Although the Movement-Asessment-Battery-Children-2 test is the most widely used instrument when measuring rehabilitation outcome in Developmental Coordination Disorder, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure and DCDdaily seem to be more responsive and constitute a valuable addition. Show less
Objectives Previous studies have identified several subgroups (ie, latent trajectories) with distinct disease progression among people with dementia. However, the methods and results were not... Show moreObjectives Previous studies have identified several subgroups (ie, latent trajectories) with distinct disease progression among people with dementia. However, the methods and results were not always consistent. This study aims to perform a coordinated analysis of latent trajectories of cognitive and functional progression in dementia across two datasets. Methods Included and analyzed using the same statistical approach were 1628 participants with dementia from the US National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) and 331 participants with dementia from the Dutch Clinical Course of Cognition and Comorbidity study (4C-Study). Trajectories of cognition and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were modeled jointly in a parallel-process growth mixture model. Results Cognition and IADL tended to decline in unison across the two samples. Slow decline in both domains was observed in 26% of the US sample and 74% of the Dutch sample. Rapid decline in cognition and IADL was observed in 7% of the US sample and 26% of the Dutch sample. The majority (67%) of the US sample showed moderate cognitive decline and rapid IADL decline. Conclusions Trajectories of slow and rapid dementia progression were identified in both samples. Despite using the same statistical methods, the number of latent trajectories was not replicated and the relative class sizes differed considerably across datasets. These results call for careful consideration when comparing progression estimates in the literature. In addition, the observed discrepancy between cognitive and functional decline stresses the need to monitor dementia progression across multiple domains. Show less
