[Using the MMSE as a cognitive screener among Turkish and Moroccan migrants]. / Het gebruik van de MMSE als screeningsinstrument voor dementie bij oudere Turkse en Marokkaanse migranten.

The Dutch population of first generation Turkish and Moroccan migrants is ageing. Among them hypertension and diabetes mellitus are frequent findings, which will probably cause an increased incidence of dementia. The language barrier, low education and cultural differences make the diagnosis more difficult. To what extent the MMSE can be used as a cognitive screener in this population will be investigated in this retrospective study.Patients received standard diagnostics, a professional translator addressed the language barrier. Correspondence was scored on characteristics of dementia, a procedure was used to diagnose without including the MMSE score. The optimal cut-off was calculated with the Youden Index and Area under the ROC (AUROC).106 patients were included, 61% had no education. Average MMSE-score was 16, with dementia 12, without 19. The AUROC was 0.85, optimal cut-off was 18 with a Youden index of 0.61.By using a professional translator the MMSE can possibly be used as a cognitive screener in this population. However, the cognitive skills addressed by the MMSE require an education and language skills. Developing a test that is independent of education and language barrier will probably be better.

The primary care diagnosis of dementia in Europe: an analysis using multidisciplinary, multinational expert groups.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the extent of variation in the detection of dementia in primary care across Europe, and the potential for the development of European guidelines. METHOD: A mixture of focus group and adapted nominal group methods involving 23 experts of different disciplines and from eight European countries. RESULTS: The diagnosis of dementia should be 'timely' rather than 'early'. Timeliness has an impact on the patient, on the caregiver, on healthcare professionals, and on society. Ethical and moral issues may interfere with the aim of timely diagnosis. Guidelines may be important for facilitating a timely diagnosis of dementia, but were infrequently used and not even available in three of the eight countries. Referral pathways often depended on health care system characteristics, differing throughout the eight European countries, whilst diagnostic strategies differed due to varied cultural influences. There was consensus that national variations can be reduced and timely diagnosis enhanced by combining simple tests using a systematic stepwise case-finding strategy, in conjunction with a strong infrastructure of multidisciplinary collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified three key themes that should be considered in harmonizing European approaches to the diagnosis of dementia in primary care: (1) a focus on timely diagnosis, (2) the need for the development and implementation of guidelines, and (3) the identification of appropriate referral pathways and diagnostic strategies including multi-professional collaboration. The content of guidelines may be determined by the perspectives of the guideline developers.

[Summary of the practice guideline 'Dementia' (second revision) from the Dutch College of General Practitioners]. / Samenvatting van de standaard 'Dementie' (tweede herziening) van het Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap.

The general practitioner (GP) should be aware of clues pointing to dementia. The GP can establish the diagnosis himself or refer the patient for extended testing. The diagnosis of dementia focuses on memory impairment, other cognitive impairments and decreased functioning in daily life. For patients with dementia and their relatives, information and advice are more important than medication. The GP must take care aspects into consideration as well as the way patients' relatives cope with the dementia patient. The treatment and care of the patient with dementia and the relatives requires good coordination and collaboration with other health workers.

[Indicators of early Alzheimer dementia in family practice. Development and validation of the Observation List of Early Symptoms of Dementia (OLD)]. / Signalering van beginnende Alzheimer-dementie in de huisartspraktijk. Ontwikkeling en validering van de Observatie Lijst voor vroege symptomen van Dementie (OLD).

UNLABELLED: Aim of the study was the development and validation of a short observation list of possible early signs of dementia (OLD) for use in general practice. A stepwise development was carried out using reviews of publications and expert consensus. Experimental observations were carried out by 22 general practitioners in 19 Dutch practices. A field study (with interviews and family forms) was conducted out afterwards, to evaluate reliability and validity. Data reduction techniques were used to construct a short version. The first two patients seen on 15 working days (N = 470) were observed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: age > 75, without a known diagnosis of dementia. Exclusion: psychiatric treatment, severe depression, acute illness with confusion. The patients were divided into three groups with no, intermediate, and the most signs (total of interviewed patients n = 60; family forms n = 39). Cronbach's alpha and factor-analysis were used to evaluate the reliability. The Cognitive Screening Test (CST), the Word Learning Test (WLT; total and retention), the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE), the Groningen Activities Restriction Scale (GARS), and an IADL scale were used to evaluate convergent validity. The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) was used to evaluate discriminant validity. Construct validity was evaluated using PRINCALS. Incremental validity was evaluated using the intuitive opinion of the GP (McNemar test). The reliability in the total group was 0.88, the first factor explained 42.5% of the variance. Convergent validity (2-side ANOVA) results: CST (p = 0.00), WLT-total (p = 0.001), WLT retention (p = 0.00), IQCODE (p = 0.09). No statistically significant differences were found for GARS and IADL. The GDS (p = 0.30) showed no difference. The first factor of PRINCALS explained 48% of the variance. The OLD added to the GP opinion (McNemar p = 0.00). Reliability of the short version (12 items) was 0.89 (interviewed group), and 0.86 (total group). The conclusion is that the OLD is a valid and reliable method to detect early signs of dementia in general practice. (Partly adapted from: Hopman-Rock M, Tak ECPM, Staats PGM. Development and validation of the Observation List for early signs of Dementia (OLD). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001 (in press)).

Limitations of the Mini-Mental State Examination in diagnosing dementia in general practice.

The aim of the study was to investigate the value of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for use by general practitioners (GPs) in a group of elderly patients in whom the GPs are considering a dementia diagnosis. The study population consisted of 533 elderly patients (aged 65 and older) judged by 36 GPs as suffering from 'minimal to severe' dementia. Cross-sectional data were used to determine the criterion validity of separate items, a set of items and the total MMSE. The GMS/AGECAT diagnosis was used as an external criterion. MMSE items were analysed and two items testing general knowledge were added. The most effective set of items was determined using a stepwise logistic regression analysis. Adjusted for age, sex and education, the differentiating ability of the set of items was compared to that of the total MMSE score. The total MMSE score was divided into three categories (cutoffs 21/22 and 26/27) and into two categories (cutoff 23/24). In total, 114 patients (21%) were diagnosed as having an 'organic syndrome' by the GMS/AGECAT. The differentiating ability of separate items was poor. The following combination of items had the best predictive ability: items concerning the date, the day of the week, the patient's address and the current prime minister. This set of items was just as adequate in differentiating dementia from non-dementia as the total MMSE score (sensitivity 64.9% and 64.8% respectively, specificity 96.4% and 93.3%). The value of the MMSE in diagnosing dementia in general practice is limited. The score on cognitive test items can be one aspect of the individual's overall clinical picture, on which the diagnosis should be based.

Nonresponse pattern and bias in a community-based cross-sectional study of cognitive functioning among the elderly.

The demographic, health, and mental functioning characteristics of nonresponders to a community-based cross-sectional study of cognitive functioning among the elderly in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Amsterdam Study of the Elderly (AMSTEL), October 1990 to May 1991), were examined and compared with responders. The randomly selected age-stratified (65-74, 75-84 years) sample was drawn from nonresponders listed with a subsample (n = 8) of general practitioners whose lists served as the sampling frame for the main study. The general practitioners approached and interviewed the responding nonresponders using the same standardized questions that were used in the main study. Nonresponders (n = 115) and responders (n = 999) from the same medical practices were compared by means of chi-square and odds ratios. Compared with responders, these nonresponders more often reported a history of psychiatric illness, heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, and were more likely to be unmarried, to have a lower education, and to do poorly on the cognitive test (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.0-2.6). Most significant physical and mental health differences by response status were seen among the persons aged < 75 years and not among those aged > or = 75 years. The odds for poor cognitive test performance associated with age and stroke were relatively more biased than those associated with other risk factors. These results suggest that the characteristics of young-old and old-old elderly nonresponders to cross-sectional studies of cognitive function may differ, and that there may be selective nonresponse that could bias, to a different degree, estimates of risk for poor cognitive functioning. Studies should investigate the possibilities for nonresponse in their own setting.