Assessment and management pathways of older adults with mild cognitive impairment: descriptive review and critical interpretive synthesis

D. Chambers, A. Cantrell, K. Sworn, A. Booth
{"title":"Assessment and management pathways of older adults with mild cognitive impairment: descriptive review and critical interpretive synthesis","authors":"D. Chambers, A. Cantrell, K. Sworn, A. Booth","doi":"10.3310/xluj6074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Mild cognitive impairment in older adults is a risk factor for dementia. Mild cognitive impairment is a result of a diverse range of underlying causes and may progress to dementia, remain stable or improve over time.\n \n \n \n We aimed to assess the evidence base around the assessment and management pathway of older adults with mild cognitive impairment in community/primary care, hospital and residential settings.\n \n \n \n In January 2021, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo®, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library (i.e. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. The search was limited to studies published in English between 2010 and 2020. Grey literature and citation searches were also performed.\n \n \n \n We performed two separate evidence reviews: (1) a descriptive review with narrative synthesis focusing on diagnosis, service provision and patient experience; and (2) a critical interpretive synthesis of evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of ‘mild cognitive impairment’ as a diagnostic label.\n \n \n \n A total of 122 studies were included in the descriptive review, of which 29 were also included in the critical interpretive synthesis. Study participants were most commonly recruited from populations of community-living older adults or those who had sought medical help from their general practitioner for memory problems. Follow-up searching identified a further 11 studies for the critical interpretive synthesis. The descriptive review identified multiple barriers to efficient diagnosis, starting with patient reluctance to seek help. General practitioners have a variety of cognitive tests available, but substantial numbers of patients meeting criteria for dementia do not have a diagnosis recorded. Patients may be referred to a memory clinic, but these clinics are mainly intended to identify and support people with dementia, and people with mild cognitive impairment may be discharged back to their general practitioner until symptoms worsen. Availability of scanning and biomarker tests is patchy. Qualitative studies show that patients with mild cognitive impairment and their carers find the process of investigation and diagnosis difficult and frustrating to negotiate. The key finding from the critical interpretive synthesis was that the need for a ‘timely’ diagnosis outweighs the ongoing debate about the value, or otherwise, of early investigation and labelling of memory problems. Determining what is a timely diagnosis involves balancing the perspectives of the patient, the health system and the clinician.\n \n \n \n The two reviews reported here have applied different ‘lenses’ to the same body of evidence. Taken together, the reviews highlight the importance of a timely diagnosis for memory problems and identify barriers to obtaining such a diagnosis, from reluctance to seek help through to patchy availability of advanced diagnostic tests.\n \n \n \n The review was primarily descriptive, reflecting the prespecified review questions. Study selection was complicated by lack of a consistent definition of mild cognitive impairment and its overlap with other memory disorders. It was not possible to employ double study selection, data extraction or quality assessment, although processes of checking and verification were used throughout the review.\n \n \n \n Priorities include evaluating remote methods of memory assessment and preparing for the likely future availability of disease-modifying treatments for early dementia. Research is needed on the investigation of memory problems in hospital and social care settings.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021232535.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/xluj6074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Mild cognitive impairment in older adults is a risk factor for dementia. Mild cognitive impairment is a result of a diverse range of underlying causes and may progress to dementia, remain stable or improve over time. We aimed to assess the evidence base around the assessment and management pathway of older adults with mild cognitive impairment in community/primary care, hospital and residential settings. In January 2021, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo®, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library (i.e. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. The search was limited to studies published in English between 2010 and 2020. Grey literature and citation searches were also performed. We performed two separate evidence reviews: (1) a descriptive review with narrative synthesis focusing on diagnosis, service provision and patient experience; and (2) a critical interpretive synthesis of evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of ‘mild cognitive impairment’ as a diagnostic label. A total of 122 studies were included in the descriptive review, of which 29 were also included in the critical interpretive synthesis. Study participants were most commonly recruited from populations of community-living older adults or those who had sought medical help from their general practitioner for memory problems. Follow-up searching identified a further 11 studies for the critical interpretive synthesis. The descriptive review identified multiple barriers to efficient diagnosis, starting with patient reluctance to seek help. General practitioners have a variety of cognitive tests available, but substantial numbers of patients meeting criteria for dementia do not have a diagnosis recorded. Patients may be referred to a memory clinic, but these clinics are mainly intended to identify and support people with dementia, and people with mild cognitive impairment may be discharged back to their general practitioner until symptoms worsen. Availability of scanning and biomarker tests is patchy. Qualitative studies show that patients with mild cognitive impairment and their carers find the process of investigation and diagnosis difficult and frustrating to negotiate. The key finding from the critical interpretive synthesis was that the need for a ‘timely’ diagnosis outweighs the ongoing debate about the value, or otherwise, of early investigation and labelling of memory problems. Determining what is a timely diagnosis involves balancing the perspectives of the patient, the health system and the clinician. The two reviews reported here have applied different ‘lenses’ to the same body of evidence. Taken together, the reviews highlight the importance of a timely diagnosis for memory problems and identify barriers to obtaining such a diagnosis, from reluctance to seek help through to patchy availability of advanced diagnostic tests. The review was primarily descriptive, reflecting the prespecified review questions. Study selection was complicated by lack of a consistent definition of mild cognitive impairment and its overlap with other memory disorders. It was not possible to employ double study selection, data extraction or quality assessment, although processes of checking and verification were used throughout the review. Priorities include evaluating remote methods of memory assessment and preparing for the likely future availability of disease-modifying treatments for early dementia. Research is needed on the investigation of memory problems in hospital and social care settings. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021232535. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
轻度认知障碍老年人的评估和管理途径:描述性综述和批判性解释综合
老年人的轻度认知障碍是痴呆症的危险因素。轻度认知障碍是多种潜在原因造成的,可能会发展为痴呆症,并随着时间的推移保持稳定或改善。我们旨在评估社区/初级保健、医院和住宅环境中患有轻度认知障碍的老年人的评估和管理途径的证据基础。2021年1月,我们搜索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycInfo®、Scopus、护理和相关健康文献累积索引、Cochrane图书馆(即Cochrane系统评价数据库和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册)、科学引文索引和社会科学引文索引。搜索仅限于2010年至2020年间以英语发表的研究。还进行了灰色文献检索和引文检索。我们进行了两次独立的证据审查:(1)描述性审查,叙述性综合,重点关注诊断、服务提供和患者体验;以及(2)关于“轻度认知障碍”作为诊断标签的优缺点的证据的批判性解释性综合。共有122项研究被纳入描述性综述,其中29项也被纳入批判性解释综合。研究参与者最常见的是从社区生活的老年人群体中招募的,或者那些因记忆问题向全科医生寻求医疗帮助的人。后续搜索确定了另外11项关于批判性解释综合的研究。描述性综述确定了有效诊断的多重障碍,首先是患者不愿寻求帮助。全科医生有各种认知测试,但大量符合痴呆症标准的患者没有诊断记录。患者可能会被转诊到记忆诊所,但这些诊所主要是为了识别和支持痴呆症患者,轻度认知障碍患者可能会出院回到他们的全科医生那里,直到症状恶化。扫描和生物标志物测试的可用性参差不齐。定性研究表明,轻度认知障碍患者及其护理人员发现调查和诊断过程困难且令人沮丧。批判性解释综合的关键发现是,“及时”诊断的必要性超过了正在进行的关于早期调查和标记记忆问题的价值或其他方面的辩论。确定什么是及时诊断需要平衡患者、卫生系统和临床医生的观点。这里报道的两篇评论对同一证据采用了不同的“视角”。总之,这些综述强调了及时诊断记忆问题的重要性,并确定了获得这种诊断的障碍,从不愿寻求帮助到缺乏先进的诊断测试。审查主要是描述性的,反映了预先指定的审查问题。研究选择由于缺乏对轻度认知障碍的一致定义及其与其他记忆障碍的重叠而变得复杂。尽管在整个审查过程中使用了检查和验证程序,但不可能采用双重研究选择、数据提取或质量评估。优先事项包括评估记忆评估的远程方法,并为未来可能提供的早期痴呆症疾病改良治疗做准备。需要对医院和社会护理环境中的记忆问题进行调查研究。本研究注册为PROSPERO CRD42021232535。该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第10期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review. Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study. Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1