4.5 Article

Mild cognitive impairment diagnosed with the new DSM-5 criteria: prevalence and associations with non-cognitive psychopathology

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 131, 期 1, 页码 29-39

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12297

关键词

mild cognitive impairment; prevalence; community study; DSM-5; non-cognitive psychopathological symptoms

资金

  1. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Madrid, Spain [94/1562, 97/1321E, 98/0103, 01/0255, 03/0815, 06/0617, G03/128]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo contrast the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) as diagnosed using DSM-5 criteria (DSM5-MCI) with MCI as diagnosed using Petersen's criteria (P-MCI) and to explore the association of both with non-cognitive psychopathological symptoms (NCPS). MethodA two-phase epidemiological screening was implemented in a population-based sample of individuals aged 55+ (n=4803). The Geriatric Mental State (GMS) was the main psychopathological instrument used, and AGECAT was used to make psychiatric diagnoses. Research psychiatrists diagnosed DSM5-MCI and P-MCI using operational criteria. Logistic regression models were then used to investigate the association of MCI with anxiety and depression and with NCPS. ResultsWeighted prevalence of DSM5-MCI and P-MCI was, respectively, 3.72% and 7.93% for the aged 65+. NCPS were common in both MCI categories, but negative-type symptoms such as anergia' and observed slowness' were considerably more frequent among persons with DSM5-MCI. Anxiety and depression diagnostic categories were associated with both P-MCI and DSM5-MCI, but affective-type symptoms were mainly associated with P-MCI. Some negative-type symptoms were inversely associated with P-MCI, and no association was observed with DSM5-MCI. ConclusionThe prevalence of DSM5-MCI was half that of P-MCI. Negative-type NCPS were more frequently and typically associated with DSM5-MCI.

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

4.5
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