4.5 Article

Effects of anosognosia and neuropsychiatric symptoms on the quality of life of patients with Alzheimer's disease: a 24-month follow-up study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.4298

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; quality of life; anosognosia; neuropsychiatric symptoms; caregivers; patients

资金

  1. Spain's Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [PSI2010-19014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesNeuropsychiatric symptoms and anosognosia are known to influence the perceived quality of life of patients (QoL-p) with Alzheimer's disease (AD). This study analysed their impact on patient and caregiver ratings of QoL-p and how these ratings changed in relation to the severity of dementia. MethodsA baseline sample of 221 patients and caregivers was followed up over 24months. Instruments: Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Anosognosia QuestionnaireDementia (AQ-D), Quality of lifeAlzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD) and the Global Deterioration Scale (GDS). Longitudinal data were analysed using generalized linear models. ResultsIn the multivariate analysis, greater anosognosia was always associated with higher ratings of QoL-p among patients, especially at 24months (p<0.001), and with more negative ratings among caregivers, especially at baseline (p<0.001). A higher total NPI score was associated with a more negative rating of QoL-p among caregivers (p<0.001), and it also had a smaller negative effect on patients' self-ratings (p=0.001). The neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI) associated with a more negative view of QoL-p were depression, for patients' self-ratings, and apathy and agitation for caregiver ratings. The discrepancy between patient and caregiver ratings increased in line with the severity of dementia. ConclusionNeuropsychiatric symptoms had a similarly negative effect on the QoL-p ratings of both patients and caregivers, whereas the effect of anosognosia differed according to the rater (positive for patients, negative for caregivers). Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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