Comparison of the Rowland University Dementia Assessment Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination cognitive screening tools among older people in Nigeria

L. Adebusoye, G. Arinola, George Amaefula, S. Hunter, H. Merl, V. Pitt
{"title":"Comparison of the Rowland University Dementia Assessment Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination cognitive screening tools among older people in Nigeria","authors":"L. Adebusoye, G. Arinola, George Amaefula, S. Hunter, H. Merl, V. Pitt","doi":"10.55320/mjz.48.4.915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction and objectives: Dementia is progressive neuro-degeneration characterized by ongoing deterioration in cognition and capacity for independent living. Empirical evidence is lacking on the best screening tool because of the cultural and linguistic diversities of Nigerians. This study screened for dementia and described the differences between the Rowland University Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) tools among older people at the University College Hospital (UCH), Ibadan, Nigeria. \nMaterials and Methods: Cross-sectional hospital-based descriptive study of 96 older people ≥60years at UCH, Ibadan. Dementia was assessed with the RUDAS and MMSE tools. Socio-demographic characteristics and memory issues were also assessed. Descriptive and inferential statistics were done and the level of significance was set at 5%. \nResults: The mean age was 70.5±7.4 years and 57(59.4%) were female respondents. The overall mean score on RUDAS was 22.8±4.0 points and MMSE was 24.2±4.8 points. Point prevalence of dementia on RUDAS and MMSE were 6.2% and 4.2% respectively. Using MMSE as the standard, the AUROC for the RUDAS was 85.9% (95% CI:60.4-99.8), and its sensitivity and specificity were75.0% and 96.7% respectively. Both RUDAS and MMSE were associated with age and residence. MMSE, but not the RUDAS, scores were influenced by total years of education (p<0.001). \nConclusion: RUDAS was as accurate as MMSE for the screening of dementia in our setting. Contrary to the MMSE, RUDAS was not influenced by the years of education for dementia. Our finding supports the use of RUDAS as an effective alternative test to MMSE for dementia screening in older Nigerians.","PeriodicalId":74149,"journal":{"name":"Medical journal of Zambia","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical journal of Zambia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55320/mjz.48.4.915","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and objectives: Dementia is progressive neuro-degeneration characterized by ongoing deterioration in cognition and capacity for independent living. Empirical evidence is lacking on the best screening tool because of the cultural and linguistic diversities of Nigerians. This study screened for dementia and described the differences between the Rowland University Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) tools among older people at the University College Hospital (UCH), Ibadan, Nigeria. Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional hospital-based descriptive study of 96 older people ≥60years at UCH, Ibadan. Dementia was assessed with the RUDAS and MMSE tools. Socio-demographic characteristics and memory issues were also assessed. Descriptive and inferential statistics were done and the level of significance was set at 5%. Results: The mean age was 70.5±7.4 years and 57(59.4%) were female respondents. The overall mean score on RUDAS was 22.8±4.0 points and MMSE was 24.2±4.8 points. Point prevalence of dementia on RUDAS and MMSE were 6.2% and 4.2% respectively. Using MMSE as the standard, the AUROC for the RUDAS was 85.9% (95% CI:60.4-99.8), and its sensitivity and specificity were75.0% and 96.7% respectively. Both RUDAS and MMSE were associated with age and residence. MMSE, but not the RUDAS, scores were influenced by total years of education (p<0.001). Conclusion: RUDAS was as accurate as MMSE for the screening of dementia in our setting. Contrary to the MMSE, RUDAS was not influenced by the years of education for dementia. Our finding supports the use of RUDAS as an effective alternative test to MMSE for dementia screening in older Nigerians.
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
尼日利亚老年人罗兰大学痴呆评估量表和迷你精神状态检查认知筛查工具的比较
前言和目的:痴呆症是一种进行性神经退行性疾病,其特征是认知能力和独立生活能力的持续恶化。由于尼日利亚人的文化和语言多样性,缺乏关于最佳筛选工具的经验证据。本研究对尼日利亚伊巴丹大学学院医院(UCH)的老年人进行痴呆筛查,并描述罗兰大学痴呆评估量表(RUDAS)和简易精神状态检查(MMSE)工具之间的差异。材料和方法:对伊巴丹联合医院96名≥60岁的老年人进行横断面描述性研究。痴呆用RUDAS和MMSE工具进行评估。社会人口特征和记忆问题也被评估。进行描述性和推断性统计,显著性水平设为5%。结果:平均年龄70.5±7.4岁,女性57例(59.4%)。RUDAS总分为22.8±4.0分,MMSE总分为24.2±4.8分。RUDAS和MMSE的痴呆点患病率分别为6.2%和4.2%。以MMSE为标准,RUDAS的AUROC为85.9% (95% CI:60.4 ~ 99.8),敏感性为75.0%,特异性为96.7%。RUDAS和MMSE均与年龄和居住地有关。MMSE分数受总受教育年限的影响,但RUDAS分数不受影响(p<0.001)。结论:在我们的环境中,RUDAS与MMSE一样准确地筛查痴呆。与MMSE相反,RUDAS不受痴呆症教育年限的影响。我们的发现支持使用RUDAS作为MMSE筛查老年尼日利亚人痴呆的有效替代测试。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Workplace experiences of diagnostic radiographers, on job satisfaction and staff retention in the public health sector in Lusaka District of Zambia Role Development and Extension for Radiographers in Computed Tomography: Literature Review Findings and their Application to Zimbabwe Role of Radiographers in the Provision of Diagnostic Medical Ultrasound Services in Zimbabwe: Past, Present and Way Forward Lipoprotein (a) as a cause of premature coronary artery disease; a case report of a 34-year-old male patient presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Gastrointestinal malignancies in Zambia: a scoping review
×
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