4.5 Article

Assessing quality of life in Taiwanese patients with Alzheimer's disease

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 103-107

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.1425

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; quality of life; Taiwan; caregiver

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To measure differences in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and caregiver assessments of the patients' quality of life (QOL) and to identify the patient characteristics, caregiver characteristics, or patient-caregiver interactions responsible for these differences. Methods We recruited consecutive patients with AD and their caregivers from an outpatient clinic of a teaching hospital in Taiwan. Each patient and caregiver rated the patient's quality of life (QOL) using the Quality of Life-Alzheimer's Disease (QOL-AD) questionnaire. Additional measures included the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating, Blessed Activities of Daily Living assessment, and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. Only patients with MMSE score >= 10 were enrolled. Results Of the 94 patients enrolled, 81 with reliable caregivers were included. The internal consistency was good within both patient and caregiver reports (alpha = 0.83 and 0.79, respectively). The agreement between patient and caregiver QOL-AD reports was moderate (absolute intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.41). Regression analyses indicated that caregiver distress was the most consistent predictor of QOL rating discrepancy between the patient and caregiver, and patient depressive disorder was the most significant predictor of QOL. Conclusions Similar to previous studies in different ethnic groups, the QOL perception differed between the Taiwanese patients with AD and their caregivers. Medical professionals should be cautious if they try to use a caregiver-reported QOL to replace the patient-reported QOL among AD patients of mild to moderate severity. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available