To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study aimed to examine: (1) patient–proxy agreement on executive functioning (EF) of patients with primary brain tumors, (2) the relationships between patient- and proxy-report with performance-based measures of EF, and (3) the potential influence of performance-based measures on the level of agreement.
Meningioma and low-grade glioma patients and their informal caregivers completed the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-A) 3 months after surgery. The two index scores of the BRIEF-A, Behavioral Regulation and Metacognition, were evaluated. Mean scores of patients and proxies were compared with normative values and with each other. Patient–proxy agreement was evaluated with Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) and Bland–Altman plots. Pearson correlation coefficients between reported EF and performance-based measures of EF were calculated. Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the potential influence of test performance on differences in dyadic reports.
A total of 47 dyads were included. Patients reported significantly more problems on the Metacognition Index compared to norms, and also in comparison with their proxies. Effect sizes indicated small differences. Moderate to substantial agreement was observed between patients and proxies, with CCCs of 0.57 and 0.61 for Metacognition and Behavioral Regulation, respectively. Correlations between reported EF and test performance ranged between −0.37 and 0.10. Dyadic agreement was not significantly influenced by test performance.
Patient–proxy agreement was found to be moderate. No clear associations were found between reported EF and test performance. Future studies should further explore the existing and new methods to assess everyday EF in brain tumor patients.
This study investigated the specific patient factors that predict responsiveness to a cognitive rehabilitation program. The program has previously been demonstrated to be successful at the group level in patients with gliomas, but it is unclear which patient characteristics optimized the effect of the intervention at the individual level. Four categories of possible predictors of improvement were selected for evaluation: sociodemographic and clinical variables, self-reported cognitive symptoms, and objective neuropsychological test performance. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were conducted, beginning with the most accessible (sociodemographic) variables and ending with the most difficult (baseline neuropsychological) to identify in clinical practice. Nearly 60% of the participants of the intervention were classified as reliably improved. Reliable improvement was predicted by age (p = .003) and education (p = .011). Additional results suggested that younger patients were more likely to benefit specifically from the cognitive rehabilitation program (p = .001), and that higher education was also associated with improvement in the control group (p = .024). The findings are discussed in light of brain reserve theory. A practical implication is that cognitive rehabilitation programs should take the patients’ age into account and, if possible, adapt programs to increase the likelihood of improvement among older participants. (JINS, 2011, 17, 256–266)
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.