Differences in stress-related ratings between research center and home environments in dementia caregivers using ecological momentary assessment.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and researchers working with dementia caregivers typically assess caregiver stress in a clinic or research center, but caregivers' stress is rooted at home where they provide care. This study aimed to compare ratings of stress-related measures obtained in research settings and in the home using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). METHODS: EMA of 18 caregivers (mean age 66.4 years ±7.8; 89% females) and 23 non-caregivers (mean age 66.4 years ±7.9; 87% females) was implemented using a personal digital assistant. Subjects rated their perceived stress, fatigue, coping with current situation, mindfulness, and situational demand once in the research center and again at 3-4 semi-random points during a day at home. The data from several assessments conducted at home were averaged for statistical analyses and compared with the data collected in the research center. RESULTS: The testing environment had a differential effect on caregivers and non-caregivers for the ratings of perceived stress (p < 0.01) and situational demand (p = 0.01). When tested in the research center, ratings for all measures were similar between groups, but when tested at home, caregivers rated their perceived stress as higher than non-caregivers (p = 0.02). Overall, caregivers reported higher perceived stress at home than in the research center (p = 0.02), and non-caregivers reported greater situational demand in the research center than at home (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment method and environment affect stress-related outcomes. Evaluating participants in their natural environment provides a more sensitive measure of stress-related outcomes. EMA provides a convenient way to gather data when evaluating dementia caregivers.

Assessment of CNS effects of antiepileptic drugs by using quantitative EEG measures.

PURPOSE: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can be associated with adverse neurologic effects including cognitive dysfunction. Objective methods for recognizing AED effects on the brain could be valuable for long-term management. We compared quantitative EEG measures and cognitive tests in a group of patients beginning or ending AED therapy. METHODS: Subjects included 20 patients beginning AED therapy (AEDon), 12 patients stopping AED therapy (AEDoff), 33 patient controls receiving stable AED therapy (AEDco), and 73 healthy controls (Nco). All subjects underwent structured EEG recording and a cognitive test battery before change in AED dose and again 12-16 weeks later, >or=4 weeks after the last dose change. Four occipital EEG measures (peak frequency, median frequency, relative theta and delta power) were analyzed. Cognitive test changes were scored by using test-retest regression equations based on the Nco subjects. Wilcoxon tests were used for two-group comparisons. RESULTS: AEDons had a significant decrease, and AEDoffs, a significant increase in the peak frequency of the EEG rhythm, as compared with controls. Results for median frequency and theta power were similar. Change in the EEG peak frequency correlated with an aggregate cognitive change measure (r2= 0.71; p < 0.001), individual cognitive measures, and subjective complaints. Of the combined AEDon/AEDoff patients, 58% exceeded the 95% confidence interval for test-retest change in EEG peak frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative measures derived from the occipital EEG are sensitive to AEDs and correlate with AED-related cognitive effects and subjective complaints. Although this correlation does not indicate a direct relation, quantified EEG may be a practical measure of AED impact on the brain.