Suppr超能文献

面对面或电话访谈评估工具性日常生活活动的比较:一项随机、交叉研究。

Comparison of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living assessment by face-to-face or telephone interviews: a randomized, crossover study.

机构信息

Memory Clinical and Research Center of Lyon (CMRR), Lyon Institute For Elderly, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Hôpital des Charpennes, 27 rue Gabriel Péri, 69100, Villeurbanne, France.

出版信息

Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020 Mar 13;12(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s13195-020-00590-w.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The functional autonomy assessment is essential to manage patients with a neurodegenerative disease, but its evaluation is not always possible during a consultation. To optimize ambulatory autonomy assessment, we compared the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) questionnaire collected by telephone and face-to-face interviews.

METHODS

A randomized, crossover study was carried out among patients attending a memory clinic (MC). The IADL questionnaire was collected for patients during telephone and face-to-face interviews between nurses and patients' caregivers. The agreement between the two methods was measured using the proportion of participants giving the same response, Cohen's kappa, intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient, and Bland and Altman method. The associations between patients' characteristics, events occurring between the two assessments, and agreement were assessed.

RESULTS

Among the 292 patients (means ± SD age 81.5 ± 7, MMSE 19.6 ± 6, 39.7% with major neurocognitive disorders) analyzed, the proportion of agreement between the two modes was 89.4% for the total IADL score. Weighted kappa coefficient was 0.66 and ICC score was 0.91 for total IADL score. The mean difference between the IADL score by telephone or face-to-face was 0.32. Overall, 96.9% of measures lay within the 95% limits of agreement. The occurrence of fall was less likely associated with the probability to lie within the 95% limits of agreement (OR = 0.07 [0.02-0.27]).

CONCLUSION

The administration of IADL by telephone with the caregiver appears to be an acceptable method of assessment for MC patients compared to face-to-face interview. The events such as falls which could occur in a time close to the evaluation should be reported.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654574. Retrospectively registered: 13 January 2016.

摘要

背景

功能自主性评估对于管理神经退行性疾病患者至关重要,但在咨询期间并非总能进行评估。为了优化门诊自主性评估,我们比较了通过电话和面对面访谈收集的洛顿工具性日常生活活动(IADL)问卷。

方法

一项在记忆诊所(MC)就诊的患者中进行的随机、交叉研究。护士与患者照顾者之间通过电话和面对面访谈收集 IADL 问卷。通过相同应答者的比例、Cohen's kappa、组内相关系数(ICC)和 Bland 和 Altman 方法来衡量两种方法的一致性。评估了患者特征、两次评估之间发生的事件以及一致性之间的关联。

结果

在 292 名患者(平均年龄 81.5±7 岁,MMSE 19.6±6,39.7%有重大神经认知障碍)中,总 IADL 评分的两种模式之间的一致性比例为 89.4%。加权 kappa 系数为 0.66,总 IADL 评分的 ICC 评分为 0.91。通过电话或面对面获得的 IADL 评分的平均差值为 0.32。总体而言,96.9%的测量值在 95%一致性限内。跌倒的发生不太可能与 95%一致性限内的概率相关(OR=0.07 [0.02-0.27])。

结论

与面对面访谈相比,通过电话与照顾者进行 IADL 评估似乎是 MC 患者可以接受的评估方法。应报告可能在评估时间附近发生的事件,如跌倒。

研究注册

ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02654574。回顾性注册:2016 年 1 月 13 日。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验