Mapping cognitive function screening instruments for patients with heart failure: A scoping review.

IF 1.1 Q3 NURSING
Belitung Nursing Journal Pub Date : 2024-06-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.33546/bnj.3165
Astuti Arseda, Tuti Pahria, Titis Kurniawan
{"title":"Mapping cognitive function screening instruments for patients with heart failure: A scoping review.","authors":"Astuti Arseda, Tuti Pahria, Titis Kurniawan","doi":"10.33546/bnj.3165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with heart failure (HF) often experience cognitive impairment, which negatively affects their quality of life. An effective screening tool is essential for nurses and healthcare professionals to assess cognitive function as part of HF management. Although many instruments exist, none are specifically designed for patients with HF.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to map the instruments for screening cognitive function in patients with HF.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A scoping review.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Articles published between 2019 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, with the last search conducted on 27 January 2024.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>The review followed the scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley and adhered to PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 21 articles meeting inclusion criteria, six cognitive function screening instruments were used across various cognitive domains, effectively identifying cognitive impairment in both inpatient and outpatient HF settings. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most frequently used tool, covering a broad range of cognitive domains. MoCA showed high efficacy with a kappa coefficient of 0.82, Cronbach's alpha reliability of 0.75, sensitivity of 90%, and specificity of 87%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Instruments like MoCA, Mini-Cog, and TICS-m show promise for assessing cognitive function in patients with HF, each with specific strengths and limitations. MoCA is notable for its comprehensive coverage despite being time-consuming and having language barriers. Further research is needed to revalidate and improve the existing instruments. It is crucial for nurses and healthcare professionals to integrate these tools into regular patient management, highlighting the need for continued research in their application.</p>","PeriodicalId":42002,"journal":{"name":"Belitung Nursing Journal","volume":"10 3","pages":"240-251"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11211750/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Belitung Nursing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.3165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) often experience cognitive impairment, which negatively affects their quality of life. An effective screening tool is essential for nurses and healthcare professionals to assess cognitive function as part of HF management. Although many instruments exist, none are specifically designed for patients with HF.

Objective: This study aimed to map the instruments for screening cognitive function in patients with HF.

Design: A scoping review.

Data sources: Articles published between 2019 and 2023 were searched in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, with the last search conducted on 27 January 2024.

Review methods: The review followed the scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley and adhered to PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews.

Results: Of the 21 articles meeting inclusion criteria, six cognitive function screening instruments were used across various cognitive domains, effectively identifying cognitive impairment in both inpatient and outpatient HF settings. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most frequently used tool, covering a broad range of cognitive domains. MoCA showed high efficacy with a kappa coefficient of 0.82, Cronbach's alpha reliability of 0.75, sensitivity of 90%, and specificity of 87%.

Conclusion: Instruments like MoCA, Mini-Cog, and TICS-m show promise for assessing cognitive function in patients with HF, each with specific strengths and limitations. MoCA is notable for its comprehensive coverage despite being time-consuming and having language barriers. Further research is needed to revalidate and improve the existing instruments. It is crucial for nurses and healthcare professionals to integrate these tools into regular patient management, highlighting the need for continued research in their application.

心力衰竭患者认知功能筛查工具图谱:范围综述。
背景心力衰竭(HF)患者经常会出现认知功能障碍,这对他们的生活质量造成了负面影响。作为心力衰竭管理的一部分,有效的筛查工具对于护士和医护人员评估认知功能至关重要。虽然有很多工具,但没有一种是专门为高血压患者设计的:本研究旨在绘制用于筛查高血压患者认知功能的工具图:数据来源:范围综述:在 PubMed、ScienceDirect 和 Google Scholar 上检索了 2019 年至 2023 年间发表的文章,最后一次检索是在 2024 年 1 月 27 日:综述遵循 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的范围界定综述框架,并遵守范围界定综述的 PRISMA 指南:在符合纳入标准的 21 篇文章中,有六种认知功能筛查工具被用于不同的认知领域,可有效识别住院和门诊高危人群的认知功能障碍。蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)是最常用的工具,涵盖了广泛的认知领域。MoCA的卡帕系数为0.82,Cronbach's alpha信度为0.75,灵敏度为90%,特异度为87%,显示出很高的有效性:MoCA、Mini-Cog 和 TICS-m 等工具在评估高频患者的认知功能方面显示出良好的前景,但每种工具都有其特定的优势和局限性。MoCA尽管耗时且存在语言障碍,但其覆盖范围全面,值得关注。还需要进一步的研究来重新验证和改进现有的工具。对于护士和医护人员来说,将这些工具整合到常规患者管理中至关重要,这也凸显了对其应用进行持续研究的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
42.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信