Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:56:33.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Vellore screening instruments and strategies for the diagnosis of dementia in the community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2009

Rena Stanley ,
Anju Kuruvilla ,
Senthil Kumar ,
K. Gayathri ,
Prasad Mathews ,
Vinod Abraham ,
Anto Rajkumar  and
K. S. Jacob
Rena Stanley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
Anju Kuruvilla
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
Senthil Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
K. Gayathri
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
Prasad Mathews
Affiliation:
Department of Geriatric Medicine, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
Vinod Abraham
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
Anto Rajkumar
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
K. S. Jacob*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: K. S. Jacob, Professor of Psychiatry, Christian Medical College, Vellore 632002India. Phone: +91 416 2284513; Fax: +91 416 2262268. Email: ksjacob@cmcvellore.ac.in.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Many screening instruments for the diagnosis of dementia are not education and culture fair. In addition, despite good sensitivity and specificity, they result in unacceptable levels of false positives when used in the community. This study aimed to develop appropriate instruments for populations with low literacy and to consider strategies to reduce the false positive rates in low prevalence settings.

Methods: Activities of daily living, which are not influenced by education and culture, were used to develop a patient screen and an informant version to identify people with dementia. The instruments were validated in the hospital and in the community setting against the standards of DSM-IV and the education-adjusted 10/66 Dementia Research Group diagnosis of dementia.

Results: The instruments were administered to 90 patients attending a hospital and 101 subjects living in the community in Vellore, South India. The psychometric properties and inter-rater reliability of these screening instruments were good. While the sensitivity and specificity of the patient screen and the informant version were good their false positive rates were high in the community setting. However, the false positive rates reduced when these instruments were used in combination.

Conclusion: The patient screen and the informant version are short culture- and education-fair instruments. They reduce false positive rates, when used in combination in the community.

Keywords

dementiascreeningdiagnosisdeveloping countries
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 539 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn. Washington: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Brodaty, H. et al. (2002). The GPCOG: a new screening test for dementia designed for general practice. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 50, 530–534.Google Scholar
Brodaty, H., Low, L., Gibson, L. and Burns, K. (2006). What is the best dementia screening instrument which general practitioners should use? American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14, 391–400.Google Scholar
Chandra, V., Ganguli, M., Pandav, R., Johnston, J., Belle, S. and DeKosky, S. T. (1998). Prevalence of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias in rural India: the Indo US study. Neurology, 51, 1000–1008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cherbuin, N., Anstey, K. J. and Lipnicki, D. M. (2008). Screening for dementia: a review of self- and informant-assessment instruments. International Psychogeriatrics, 20, 431–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Copeland, J. R. M., Dewey, M. E. and Griffith-Jones, H. M. (1986). A computerised psychiatric diagnostic system and case nomenclature for elderly subjects: GMS and AGECAT. Psychological Medicine, 16, 89–99.Google Scholar
Copeland, J. R. et al. (2002). The Geriatric Mental State Examination in the 21st century. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 727–732.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. L., Mega, M., Gray, K., Rosenberg-Thompson, S., Carusi, D. A. and Gornbein, J. (1994). The neuropsychiatric inventory: comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology, 44, 2308–2314.Google Scholar
Ferri, C. P. et al. (2005). Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet, 366, 2112–2117.Google Scholar
Fillenbaum, G. et al. (1999). Development of an activities of daily living scale to screen for dementia in an illiterate rural older population in India. Age and Aging, 28, 161–168.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for clinicians. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.Google Scholar
Ganguli, M. et al. (1995). A Hindi version of the MMSE: the development of a cognitive screening instrument for a largely illiterate rural elderly population in India. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10, 367–377.Google Scholar
Ganguli, M. et al. (1996). Cognitive test performance in a community based non demented elderly sample in rural India: the Indo-US cross national dementia epidemiology study. International Psychogeriatrics, 8, 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, K. S. et al. (1993). The development of a dementia screening interview in two distinct languages. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 3, 1–28.Google Scholar
Jacob, K. S. (2003). Mental status examination: the elicitation of symptoms. Psychopathology, 36, 1–5.Google Scholar
Jacob, K. S., Kumar, P. S., Gayathri, K., Abraham, S. and Prince, M. J. (2007). Can health workers diagnose dementia in the community? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 116, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorm, A. F. and Jacomb, P. A. (1989). The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline (IQCODE): socio-demographic correlates, reliability, validity and social norms. Psychological Medicine, 19, 1015–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medical Research Council CFA (1998). Cognitive function and dementia in six areas of England and Wales: the distribution of MMSE and prevalence of GMS organicity level in the MRC CFA. Psychological Medicine, 28, 319–335.Google Scholar
Milne, A., Culverwell, A., Guss, R., Tuppen, J. and Whelton, R. (2008). Screening for dementia in primary care: a review of the use efficacy and quality of measures. International Psychogeriatrics, 20, 911–926.Google Scholar
Prince, M., Acosta, D., Chiu, H., Scazufca, M. and Varghese, M. (2003). Dementia diagnosis in developing countries: a cross cultural validation study. Lancet, 361, 909–917.Google Scholar
Prince, M., Acosta, D., Chiu, H., Scazufca, M. and Varghese, M. (2004). Effects of education and culture on the validity of the Geriatric Mental State and its AGECAT algorithm. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 429–436.Google Scholar
Rajkumar, S., Kumar, S. and Thara, R. (1997). Prevalence of dementia in a rural setting: a report from India. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 702–707.Google Scholar
Strub, R. L. and Black, F. W. (1988). Neurobehavioral Disorders: A Clinical Approach. Philadelphia: FA Davis Co.Google Scholar
Weinstein, S., Obuchowski, N. and Lieber, M. (2005). Fundamentals of clinical research for radiologists: clinical evaluation of diagnostic tests. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184, 14–19.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2001). WHODAS II Disability assessment schedule. Geneva: WHO. (Available at: http://www.who.int/icidh/whodas/translations.html; last accessed 30 September 2008.)Google Scholar