Screening of Cognitive Changes in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review

Paiva, Andreia F.; Nolan, Adam; Thumser, Charlotte; Santos, Flávia Heloísa dos

doi:10.3390/brainsci10110848

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, it shows good convergent validity with memory subtest of the TB-DI and CAMCOG-DS. Considering that the verbal memory subtest of the TB-DI presents good internal consistency [ 29 ] and the CAMCOG-DS is recommended for follow-up studies [ 52 ], this proves that the PMIS-ID measures memory processes. Furthermore, AUC is acceptable (above 0.7) and the discriminant validity for the proposed cut-off score of the PMIS-ID (4.5) shows good specificity (86%) and appropriate sensitivity (69%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pictorial Screening Memory Test (P-MIS) for Adults with Moderate Intellectual Disability and Alzheimer’s Disease

Rodríguez-Hidalgo

García-Alba

Buxó

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we examined normative data and diagnostic accuracy of a pictorial screening test to detect memory impairment for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in Spanish-speaking adults with intellectual disability (ID). A total of 94 volunteers with ID (60 controls, 17 MCI, and 17 AD), were evaluated by neuropsychological tests including the PMIS-ID in a cross-sectional validation study. Discriminative validity between the MCI, AD, and control group was analyzed by the area under the ROC curve. A cut-off score of 4.5 on the immediate recall trial had a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 80% to detect memory impairment (AUC = 0.685; 95% CI = 0.506–0.863) in the AD group. The PMIS-ID is a useful screening test to rule out a diagnosis of memory decline in people with moderate level of ID and AD, and it shows good psychometric properties.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pictorial Screening Memory Test (P-MIS) for Adults with Moderate Intellectual Disability and Alzheimer’s Disease

Rodríguez-Hidalgo

García-Alba

Buxó

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are still major disagreements within the field about which instruments to use (Paiva et al, 2020) and current best practice guidance provides a list of possible measures but is not prescriptive about their use (BPS and RCP, 2015). There have been four published reviews of instruments since 2013, with a fifth review of informant-based measures forthcoming (Elliott-King et al, 2016;McKenzie et al, 2018;Paiva et al, 2020;Zeilinger et al, 2013Zeilinger et al, , 2020, but there is no consensus between reviewers about which instrument to use (for example compare recent reviews by Paiva et al, 2020 andMurray, 2018). These reviews have highlighted that although there a variety of instruments are available; many lack comprehensive information on psychometric properties and few have been standardized for use with people with intellectual disabilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Current best practice guidelines and recent systematic reviews recommend combining measures of cognitive ability and adaptive behaviour, and including both direct assessment of the person and informant questionnaires where possible. The most recent review (Paiva et al, 2020) has recommended combining the DLD with a direct cognitive assessment such as the Cambridge Cognition Examination (CAMCOG-DS) (Hon et al, 1999). Despite these tentative recommendations, sources agree that the choice of instrument should take into account wider issues such as assessment duration, baseline ability of the individual being assessed and cost and purpose of conducting the assessment (McKenzie et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of dementia assessment services for people with intellectual disabilities

Gardner

Slater

2021

TLDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to describe three dementia assessment services for people with intellectual disabilities to provide professionals with insight into planning this type of service. Design/methodology/approach Three services in England were contacted via email and telephone to collect data on their service provision. They were asked about the average age of individuals when receiving a baseline assessment, frequency of follow-up assessment, assessment instruments used and descriptive aspects of their services. Findings All three services offered proactive dementia assessment services to people with Down's syndrome (DS), with one service providing systematic screening via the GP. None offered proactive screening to people with intellectual disabilities who did not have a diagnosis of DS. All offered reactive assessment to this population if they experienced a decline in function. Services differed in terms of age at which baseline assessments were offered, frequency of follow-up and instruments used. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to compare dementia assessment provision between different services in England.

show abstract

“…A working group of multi-disciplinary health professionals identified all articles which contained basic information about the tool’s reliability, validity and normative data. This resulted in 172 articles being excluded, and 14 remained as suitable, as they considered outcome measures which were being used to determine the effectiveness of dementia interventions, in the learning disability population (Yang et al , 2014; Axmon et al,2017; Ball et al , 2008; Cummings et al , 2008; Riepe et al,2011; Hanney et al , 2012; McKenzie et al , 2018; Paiva et al , 2020; Prasher, 2004; Deb et al , 2007; Sikkes et al , 2011; Lai, 2014; Skinner et al , 2012; Elliott-King et al , 2016).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using a battery of assessments, examining multiple aspects of a person's functioning is advantageous. Paiva et al (2020) present a comprehensive systematic review of screening tools for people with ID who may have dementia. They reported on a wide range of screening tools and identify the need for a small range of high-quality, standardised measures to facilitate diagnosis on clinical practice.…”

Section: Difficulties In Using Outcome Measures With This Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

What outcome measures are most useful in measuring the effectiveness of anti-dementia medication in people with intellectual disabilities and dementia?

Ghazirad

Hewitt

Walden

2022

AMHID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The use of anti-dementia medication in people with intellectual disabilities has been controversial and requires additional research to assess the efficacy of such medications. An essential part of this treatment (both in terms of research and clinical practice) is having robust outcome measures to assess the efficacy of these medications for individuals. Currently there is no consensus in the UK regarding which outcome measures, in conjunction with clinical judgement, are effective in informing clinicians’ decision-making regarding anti-dementia medication management and this paper aims to present useful outcome measures. Design/methodology/approach A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant outcome measures. Outcome measures focused on aspects of patients’ presentation such as cognition, activities of daily living, neuropsychiatric presentation or the impact of their presentation (either on themselves, or on others). These outcome measures were critically appraised to ascertain their suitability in informing clinician’s decisions regarding management of anti-dementia medication. The focus of this appraisal was on good quality measures that are practical and accessible and can be easily used within clinical NHS services. Findings This paper provides advice for clinicians on using appropriate outcome measures, depending on patients’ presentations and the symptoms of dementia being targeted, that can be used alongside their clinical assessment to enhance their anti-dementia medication management. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the use of such outcome measures. Originality/value The case for using a range of assessments that are both broad in focus, and those specifically selected to measure the areas of functioning targeted by the anti-dementia medication, is presented.

show abstract

Screening of Cognitive Changes in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review

Cited by 18 publications

References 112 publications

The Pictorial Screening Memory Test (P-MIS) for Adults with Moderate Intellectual Disability and Alzheimer’s Disease

The Pictorial Screening Memory Test (P-MIS) for Adults with Moderate Intellectual Disability and Alzheimer’s Disease

A comparison of dementia assessment services for people with intellectual disabilities

What outcome measures are most useful in measuring the effectiveness of anti-dementia medication in people with intellectual disabilities and dementia?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About