4.3 Article

Perceived stress and reported cognitive symptoms among Georgia patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

期刊

LUPUS
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 1064-1071

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0961203317693095

关键词

Systemic lupus erythematosus; stress; cognitive function; African-American

资金

  1. Clinical and Translational Science Award Program, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1TR000454]
  2. Human Genome Science Inc.
  3. GlaxoSmithKline [GHO-11-3366]
  4. NIH [R01AR065493]
  5. CDC [U01DP005119]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To examine associations of perceived stress with cognitive symptoms among adults with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods Among 777 adult (18 years) SLE patients, the association of Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) scores with two self-reported cognitive symptoms was examined: forgetfulness (severe/moderate vs. mild/none; from the Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire) and difficulty concentrating (all/most vs. some/little/none of the time; from the Lupus Impact Tracker). The study used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) per minimal important difference (MID=0.5*SD) of PSS score and cognitive symptoms. Results Forgetfulness and difficulty concentrating were reported by 41.7% and 29.5%, respectively. Women and those with less education and high disease activity had higher PSS scores and were more likely to report cognitive symptoms than their counterparts. With adjustment for age, race, sex, education, and disease activity, each MID increase in PSS score was associated with higher prevalence of forgetfulness (OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.29-1.47) and difficulty concentrating (OR=2.19, 95% CI 1.90-2.52). No substantial differences in this association by age, race, sex, or disease activity were noted. Conclusions SLE patients, particularly those with high disease activity, report a high burden of cognitive symptoms, for which stress may be a modifiable risk factor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据