模拟时钟和数字时钟对痴呆症患者更友好吗?

IF 1.4 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra Pub Date : 2021-09-13 eCollection Date: 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1159/000518350
Akihiro Koreki, Keisuke Kusudo, Hisaomi Suzuki, Shoko Nozaki, Mitsumoto Onaya, Alison Bowes, Mitsuhiro Sado
{"title":"模拟时钟和数字时钟对痴呆症患者更友好吗?","authors":"Akihiro Koreki, Keisuke Kusudo, Hisaomi Suzuki, Shoko Nozaki, Mitsumoto Onaya, Alison Bowes, Mitsuhiro Sado","doi":"10.1159/000518350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In ageing population, it is desirable to reduce the impact of cognitive decline on daily life. While various types of dementia-friendly environments have been proposed, the question still remains regarding whether analogue or digital clocks are friendlier for people with dementia. Methods: In clinical practice, we normally use our original clock reading test (10 analogue and 10 digital clocks) to assess patients’ ability to read a clock. In the present study, a retrospective medical record survey was conducted. Fifty-five participants who had done the test were identified. The result of the test was compared between analogue and digital clocks. Additionally, to assess specific ability to read analogue clocks, an “analogue-digital gap” was defined as the difference between patients’ performance for analogue and digital clocks. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to detect significant factors associated with reading ability specific to analogue clocks. Results: The analogue clock proved less readable than the digital clock, even after adjusting for MMSE total score (p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed reading ability of the analogue clock was significantly associated with MMSE calculation and clock drawing test (p = 0.009 and 0.040, respectively). Conclusions: In the present study, the digital clock was friendlier than the analogue clock for patients with dementia. Compared to the digital clock, reading analogue clocks might require more widespread cognition, such as working memory and visuospatial processing. While our finding was a general tendency, and individual assessment is necessary, it might help the development of personalized environmental adjustments.","PeriodicalId":38017,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d3/f9/dee-0011-0207.PMC8460955.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Analogue or Digital Clocks Friendlier for People Living with Dementia?\",\"authors\":\"Akihiro Koreki, Keisuke Kusudo, Hisaomi Suzuki, Shoko Nozaki, Mitsumoto Onaya, Alison Bowes, Mitsuhiro Sado\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000518350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: In ageing population, it is desirable to reduce the impact of cognitive decline on daily life. While various types of dementia-friendly environments have been proposed, the question still remains regarding whether analogue or digital clocks are friendlier for people with dementia. Methods: In clinical practice, we normally use our original clock reading test (10 analogue and 10 digital clocks) to assess patients’ ability to read a clock. In the present study, a retrospective medical record survey was conducted. Fifty-five participants who had done the test were identified. The result of the test was compared between analogue and digital clocks. Additionally, to assess specific ability to read analogue clocks, an “analogue-digital gap” was defined as the difference between patients’ performance for analogue and digital clocks. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to detect significant factors associated with reading ability specific to analogue clocks. Results: The analogue clock proved less readable than the digital clock, even after adjusting for MMSE total score (p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed reading ability of the analogue clock was significantly associated with MMSE calculation and clock drawing test (p = 0.009 and 0.040, respectively). Conclusions: In the present study, the digital clock was friendlier than the analogue clock for patients with dementia. Compared to the digital clock, reading analogue clocks might require more widespread cognition, such as working memory and visuospatial processing. While our finding was a general tendency, and individual assessment is necessary, it might help the development of personalized environmental adjustments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d3/f9/dee-0011-0207.PMC8460955.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000518350\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000518350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:在人口老龄化中,人们希望减少认知能力下降对日常生活的影响。虽然已经提出了各种类型的痴呆症友好环境,但关于模拟时钟还是数字时钟对痴呆症患者更友好的问题仍然存在。方法:在临床实践中,我们通常使用我们的原始时钟阅读测试(10个模拟时钟和10个数字时钟)来评估患者阅读时钟的能力。本研究采用回顾性病历调查方法。55名参与测试的参与者被确认。对模拟时钟和数字时钟的测试结果进行了比较。此外,为了评估读取模拟时钟的特定能力,“模拟-数字差距”被定义为患者对模拟时钟和数字时钟的表现之间的差异。进行单变量和多变量分析,以检测与模拟时钟特定的阅读能力相关的显著因素。结果:即使在调整MMSE总分后,模拟时钟的可读性也比数字时钟低(p = 0.003)。多因素分析显示,模拟时钟的阅读能力与MMSE计算和时钟绘制测试显著相关(p分别= 0.009和0.040)。结论:在本研究中,数字时钟比模拟时钟对痴呆患者更友好。与数字时钟相比,阅读模拟时钟可能需要更广泛的认知,比如工作记忆和视觉空间处理。虽然我们的发现是一个普遍的趋势,个人评估是必要的,但它可能有助于个性化环境调整的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Are Analogue or Digital Clocks Friendlier for People Living with Dementia?
Background: In ageing population, it is desirable to reduce the impact of cognitive decline on daily life. While various types of dementia-friendly environments have been proposed, the question still remains regarding whether analogue or digital clocks are friendlier for people with dementia. Methods: In clinical practice, we normally use our original clock reading test (10 analogue and 10 digital clocks) to assess patients’ ability to read a clock. In the present study, a retrospective medical record survey was conducted. Fifty-five participants who had done the test were identified. The result of the test was compared between analogue and digital clocks. Additionally, to assess specific ability to read analogue clocks, an “analogue-digital gap” was defined as the difference between patients’ performance for analogue and digital clocks. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to detect significant factors associated with reading ability specific to analogue clocks. Results: The analogue clock proved less readable than the digital clock, even after adjusting for MMSE total score (p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed reading ability of the analogue clock was significantly associated with MMSE calculation and clock drawing test (p = 0.009 and 0.040, respectively). Conclusions: In the present study, the digital clock was friendlier than the analogue clock for patients with dementia. Compared to the digital clock, reading analogue clocks might require more widespread cognition, such as working memory and visuospatial processing. While our finding was a general tendency, and individual assessment is necessary, it might help the development of personalized environmental adjustments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: This open access and online-only journal publishes original articles covering the entire spectrum of cognitive dysfunction such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea and other neurodegenerative diseases. The journal draws from diverse related research disciplines such as psychogeriatrics, neuropsychology, clinical neurology, morphology, physiology, genetic molecular biology, pathology, biochemistry, immunology, pharmacology and pharmaceutics. Strong emphasis is placed on the publication of research findings from animal studies which are complemented by clinical and therapeutic experience to give an overall appreciation of the field. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra provides additional contents based on reviewed and accepted submissions to the main journal Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra .
期刊最新文献
Fear of Dementia among Middle-Aged and Older Adults in Germany. Characteristics of Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment Influenced by the Time of Onset. Prevalence of Geriatric Syndromes among Older Outpatients with Dementia. Criterion-Related Validity of the Cognitive Function Score with the Revised Hasegawa's Dementia Scale and the Bedriddenness Rank with the Barthel Index and the Katz Index: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study. What’s new in dementia risk prediction modelling? An updated systematic 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