Insight in cognitive impairment assessed with the Cognitive Assessment Interview in a large sample of patients with schizophrenia.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-28 DOI:10.1007/s00406-023-01641-7
Paola Bucci, Armida Mucci, Giulia M Giordano, Edoardo Caporusso, Luigi Giuliani, Dino Gibertoni, Alessandro Rossi, Paola Rocca, Alessandro Bertolino, Silvana Galderisi
{"title":"Insight in cognitive impairment assessed with the Cognitive Assessment Interview in a large sample of patients with schizophrenia.","authors":"Paola Bucci, Armida Mucci, Giulia M Giordano, Edoardo Caporusso, Luigi Giuliani, Dino Gibertoni, Alessandro Rossi, Paola Rocca, Alessandro Bertolino, Silvana Galderisi","doi":"10.1007/s00406-023-01641-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Cognitive Assessment Interview (CAI) is an interview-based scale measuring cognitive impairment and its impact on functioning in subjects with schizophrenia (SCZ). The present study aimed at assessing, in a large sample of SCZ (n = 601), the agreement between patients and their informants on CAI ratings, to explore patients' insight in their cognitive deficits and its relationships with clinical and functional indices. Agreement between patient- and informant-based ratings was assessed by the Gwet's agreement coefficient. Predictors of insight in cognitive deficits were explored by stepwise multiple regression analyses. Patients reported lower severity of cognitive impairment vs. informants. A substantial to almost perfect agreement was observed between patients' and informants' ratings. Lower insight in cognitive deficits was associated to greater severity of neurocognitive impairment and positive symptoms, lower severity of depressive symptoms, and older age. Worse real-life functioning was associated to lower insight in cognitive deficit, worse neurocognitive performance, and worse functional capacity. Our findings indicate that the CAI is a valid co-primary measure with the interview to patients providing a reliable assessment of their cognitive deficits. In the absence of informants with good knowledge of the subject, the interview to the patient may represent a valid alternative.</p>","PeriodicalId":11822,"journal":{"name":"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362188/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-023-01641-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Cognitive Assessment Interview (CAI) is an interview-based scale measuring cognitive impairment and its impact on functioning in subjects with schizophrenia (SCZ). The present study aimed at assessing, in a large sample of SCZ (n = 601), the agreement between patients and their informants on CAI ratings, to explore patients' insight in their cognitive deficits and its relationships with clinical and functional indices. Agreement between patient- and informant-based ratings was assessed by the Gwet's agreement coefficient. Predictors of insight in cognitive deficits were explored by stepwise multiple regression analyses. Patients reported lower severity of cognitive impairment vs. informants. A substantial to almost perfect agreement was observed between patients' and informants' ratings. Lower insight in cognitive deficits was associated to greater severity of neurocognitive impairment and positive symptoms, lower severity of depressive symptoms, and older age. Worse real-life functioning was associated to lower insight in cognitive deficit, worse neurocognitive performance, and worse functional capacity. Our findings indicate that the CAI is a valid co-primary measure with the interview to patients providing a reliable assessment of their cognitive deficits. In the absence of informants with good knowledge of the subject, the interview to the patient may represent a valid alternative.

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
通过认知评估访谈评估大样本精神分裂症患者认知障碍的洞察力。
认知评估访谈(CAI)是一种基于访谈的量表,用于测量精神分裂症(SCZ)患者的认知障碍及其对功能的影响。本研究旨在评估大样本精神分裂症患者(n = 601)及其信息提供者对 CAI 评级的一致性,以探讨患者对其认知缺陷的洞察力及其与临床和功能指数的关系。患者评分与信息提供者评分之间的一致性通过 Gwet 一致系数进行评估。通过逐步多元回归分析探讨了认知缺陷洞察力的预测因素。患者与信息提供者相比,认知障碍的严重程度较低。患者和信息提供者的评分结果几乎完全一致。认知障碍的洞察力较低与神经认知障碍和阳性症状的严重程度较高、抑郁症状的严重程度较低以及年龄较大有关。较差的现实生活功能与较低的认知缺陷洞察力、较差的神经认知表现和较差的功能能力有关。我们的研究结果表明,CAI 是一种有效的共同主要测量方法,通过对患者的访谈可以对其认知缺陷进行可靠的评估。在缺乏对研究对象有充分了解的信息提供者的情况下,对患者进行访谈可能是一种有效的替代方法。
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
8.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
154
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The original papers published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience deal with all aspects of psychiatry and related clinical neuroscience. Clinical psychiatry, psychopathology, epidemiology as well as brain imaging, neuropathological, neurophysiological, neurochemical and moleculargenetic studies of psychiatric disorders are among the topics covered. Thus both the clinician and the neuroscientist are provided with a handy source of information on important scientific developments.
期刊最新文献
Episodic memory impairment and its influencing factors in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis Hemispheric asymmetries in borderline personality disorder: a systematic review Post-COVID syndrome - novel clinical findings. Nightmare frequency and nightmare distress in psychiatric inpatients. The critical role of primary care providers in addressing suicide.
×
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