Analysis of the consistency of information received from Alzheimer’s disease patients and their families in the quality of life and depression scales

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to examine the consistency of quality of life and depression scales using information obtained from individuals with Alzheimer disease (AD) and the family members of these patients. Material and Methods: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score was ≥14 points patients who were diagnosed with AD (n:86) and their families(n:86) participated in the study. All individuals took the Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form (GDS-SF), Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument Elderly Module Turkish Version (WHOQOL-OLD). Data obtained from 78 patients and their relatives who have completed all of the questions in the scales were evaluated. Patient and family scale scores were compared using correlation analysis and difference analysis. Results: A moderate to very high correlation was found between the GDS-SF, NHP, and WHOQOL results of the patients and their relatives (0.447-0.848). It was detected that while NHP correlation coefficients varied between 0.734 and 0.848, WHOQOL-OLD correlation coefficients varied between 0.447 and 0.696. When the difference between the scores of the answers given by the patient and his family was examined, a statistically significant difference was found only in the mean scores of NHP sleep, WHOQOL sensory ability, WHOQOL social participation and WHOQOL raw (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, NHP, GDS-SF, and WHOQOL-OLD consistency between the individual with AD diagnosis and their family. However, if information is to be obtained from the patient in evaluating the quality of life, choosing NHP instead of WHOQOL-OLD may lead to more accurate results.

Keywords

• Alzheimer Disease
• Depression
• Quality of Life

Alzheimer hastalığında yaşam kalitesi ve depresyon ölçeklerinde hasta ve ailelerinden alınan bilgilerin tutarlılığının incelenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Alzheimer Hastalığı(AH) tanısı olan bireylerden ve bu hastaların aile bireylerinden alınan bilgilerle doldurulan yaşam kalitesi ve depresyon ölçeklerinin tutarlılığının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Mini-Mental Test (MMT) sonucu ≥14 puan olan, AH tanısı alan hastalar (n: 86) ve aileleri (n: 86) çalışmaya alındı. Tüm bireylere Geriatrik Depresyon Ölçeği Kısa Formu (GDS-SF), Nottingham Sağlık Profili (NHP) ve Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Yaşam Kalitesi Enstrümanı Yaşlı Modülü Türkçe Versiyonu (WHOQOL-OLD) uygulandı. Ölçeklerdeki tüm soruları tamamlayan 78 hasta ve yakınlarından elde edilen veriler değerlendirildi. Hastaların ve ailelerin ölçek puanları korelasyon analizi ve fark analizi kullanılarak karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Hasta ve yakınlarının GDÖ, NHP ve WHOQOL sonuçları arasında orta ile çok yüksek korelasyon bulunmuştur (0.447-0.848). NHP korelasyon katsayıları 0.734 ile 0.848 arası değişir iken WHOQOL korelasyon katsayıları 0.447 ile 0.696 arasında değiştiği tespit edilmiştir. Hasta ve ailesinin verdiği cevapların puanları arasındaki fark incelendiğinde yalnızca NHP uyku, WHOQOL duyusal yetenek, WHOQOL sosyal katılım ve WHOQOL ham puanlarının ortalamalarında istatistiki olarak farklılık bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Sonuç: NHP, GDS-SF ve WHOQOL sonuçları AH tanısı olan birey ve ailesi arasında tutarlılık göstermektedir. Fakat yaşam kalitesi değerlendirmede hastadan bilgi alınacak ise WHOQOL yerine NHP tercih edilmesi daha doğru sonuçlara götürebilir

Keywords

• Alzheimer Hastalığı
• Depresyon
• Yaşam kalitesi
• tutarlılık

References

1. 1. Keskinoglu P, et al., The prevalence and risk factors of dementia in the elderly population in a low socio-economic region of Izmir, Turkey. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 2006; 43: 93-100.
2. 2. Prince,M.J. World Alzheimer Report 2015: the global impact of dementia: an analysis of prevalence, incidence, cost and trends. 2015: Alzheimer's Disease International.
3. 3. Logsdon R.G., et al., Assessing quality of life in older adults with cognitive impairment. Psychosomatic medicine, 2002; 64: 510-9.
4. 4. Hoe J, et al., Quality of life in dementia: care recipient and caregiver perceptions of quality of life in dementia: the LASER‐AD study. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2007; 22: 1031-6.
5. 5. Merchant C. and K.W. Hope, The Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease Scale: direct assessment of people with cognitive impairment. Journal of clinical nursing, 2004; 13: 105-10.
6. 6. Cahill S, et al., ‘I Know Where this is Going and I Know it won’t Go Back’ Hearing the Individual’s Voice in Dementia Quality of Life Assessments. Dementia, 2004; 3: 313-30.
7. 7. Whitehouse P.J, et al.Quality-of-life assessment in dementia drug development: position paper from the International Working Group on Harmonization of Dementia Drug Guidelines. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 1997; 11: 56-60.
8. 8. Coucill W, et al., EQ-5D in patients with dementia an investigation of inter-rater agreement. Medical care, 2001; 39: 760-71.

9. 9. Ready R.E, B.R. Ott, and J. Grace, Patient versus informant perspectives of quality of life in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2004; 19: 256-65.
10. 10. Şahin, M., Depresyon ve demans. Demans Dizisi. 2000; 1: 27-31
11. 11. Cangöz B, et al., Three Different Elderly Diseases: An Investigation According To General Cognitive Functions, Memory, Depression And Dailiy Living Activites. 2012.
12. 12. Güngen C, et al., Reliability and validity of the standardized Mini Mental State Examination in the diagnosis of mild dementia in Turkish population. Turk psikiyatri dergisi= Turkish journal of psychiatry, 2002; 13: 273-81.
13. 13. Ertan T. and E. Eker, Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the geriatric depression scale in Turkish elderly: are there different factor structures for different cultures? International Psychogeriatrics, 2000; 12: 163-72.
14. 14. Kücükdeveci A, et al., The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation, 2000; 23: 31-8.
15. 15. Eser S., et al., The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the World Health Organization quality of life instrument-older adults module (WHOQOL-Old). Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 2010; 21: 1.
16. 16. Ettema T.P, et al., A review of quality of life instruments used in dementia. Quality of life research, 2005; 14: 675-86.
17. 17. Selai C.E, et al. Assessing quality of life in dementia: Preliminary psychometric testing of the Quality of Life Assessment Schedule (QOLAS). Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 2001; 11: 219-43.
18. 18. Novella J, et al., Agreement between patients' and proxies' reports of quality of lifein Alzheimer's disease. Quality of life research, 2001; 10: 443-52.
19. 19. Fossey J, L. Lee, and C. Ballard, Dementia Care Mapping as a research tool for measuring quality of life in care settings: psychometric properties. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2002; 17: 1064-70.
20. 20. Boyer F, et al. Agreement between dementia patient report and proxy reports using the Nottingham Health Profile. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2004; 19: 1026-34.
21. 21. McCurry S.M, et al., Factors associated with caregiver reports of sleep disturbances in persons with dementia. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2006; 14: 112-20.
22. 22. Hoekert M, et al., Comparison between informant-observed and actigraphic assessments of sleep–wake rhythm disturbances in demented residents of homes for the elderly. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2006, 14: 104-11.