4.5 Article

Proposed diagnostic criteria for apathy in Alzheimer's disease and other neuropsychiatric disorders

期刊

EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 98-104

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2008.09.001

关键词

Apathy; Alzheimer's disease; Neuropsychiatry; Diagnostic criteria

资金

  1. AFPB (Association Francaise de Psychiatrie Biologique)
  2. EPA (European Psychiatric Association)
  3. European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium (EADC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is wide acknowledgement that apathy is an important behavioural syndrome in Alzheimer's disease and in various neuropsychiatric disorders. In light of recent research and the renewed interest in the correlates and impacts of apathy, and in its treatments, it is important to develop criteria for apathy that will be widely accepted, have clear operational steps, and that will be easily applied in practice and research settings. Meeting these needs is the focus of the task force work reported here. The task force includes members of the Association Francaise de Psychiatric Biologique, the European Psychiatric Association, the European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium and experts from Europe, Australia and North America. An advanced draft was discussed at the consensus meeting (during the EPA conference in April 7th 2008) and a final agreement reached concerning operational definitions and hierarchy of the criteria. Apathy is defined as a disorder of motivation that persists over time and should meet the following requirements. Firstly, the core feature of apathy, diminished motivation, must be present for at least four weeks; secondly two of the three dimensions of apathy (reduced goal-directed behaviour, goal-directed cognitive activity, and emotions) must also be present; thirdly there should be identifiable functional impairments attributable to the apathy. Finally, exclusion criteria are specified to exclude symptoms and states that mimic apathy. (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

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