Examining Agreement in Psychotic Symptom Assessment: Insights from Parkinson's Disease Dementia Dyads.

IF 2.6 4区医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Movement Disorders Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1002/mdc3.14225

Blake Beehler, Michelle H S Tosin, Glenn T Stebbins, Christopher G Goetz

{"title":"Examining Agreement in Psychotic Symptom Assessment: Insights from Parkinson's Disease Dementia Dyads.","authors":"Blake Beehler, Michelle H S Tosin, Glenn T Stebbins, Christopher G Goetz","doi":"10.1002/mdc3.14225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Psychosis and cognitive decline often co-occur in Parkinson's Disease (PD), which complicates assessment.Objective: We measured agreement between patients with PD and dementia (PDD) and care partners (CPs) in their independent evaluation of PD-related psychotic symptoms.Methods: We compared responses to a PD psychosis rating scale (SAPS-PD) in 21 dyads of patients with PDD and cognitively normal CPs. We assessed the concordance of responses using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Following the psychosis assessment, the clinician used all available information and adjudicated who provided the most reliable responses.Results: Dyads demonstrated poor concordance in summary scores (ICC = 0.464). Six of the nine individual items had poor agreement. The clinician adjudicated the patient's response as the more reliable in 71.4% of cases.Conclusions: Although many psychotic symptoms are internal and not observable, in the context of PDD, both patient and CP inputs are valuable, but final adjudication favors patient responses.","PeriodicalId":19029,"journal":{"name":"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Movement Disorders Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.14225","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Psychosis and cognitive decline often co-occur in Parkinson's Disease (PD), which complicates assessment.

Objective: We measured agreement between patients with PD and dementia (PDD) and care partners (CPs) in their independent evaluation of PD-related psychotic symptoms.

Methods: We compared responses to a PD psychosis rating scale (SAPS-PD) in 21 dyads of patients with PDD and cognitively normal CPs. We assessed the concordance of responses using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Following the psychosis assessment, the clinician used all available information and adjudicated who provided the most reliable responses.

Results: Dyads demonstrated poor concordance in summary scores (ICC = 0.464). Six of the nine individual items had poor agreement. The clinician adjudicated the patient's response as the more reliable in 71.4% of cases.

Conclusions: Although many psychotic symptoms are internal and not observable, in the context of PDD, both patient and CP inputs are valuable, but final adjudication favors patient responses.

查看原文本刊更多论文

研究精神症状评估中的一致性：帕金森氏症痴呆症双人组的启示。

背景：帕金森病（PD）患者常常同时出现精神病和认知能力下降，这使得评估工作变得复杂：我们测量了帕金森病和痴呆症（PDD）患者与护理伙伴（CP）在独立评估帕金森病相关精神病症状时的一致性：方法：我们比较了 21 组 PDD 患者和认知能力正常的 CP 对 PD 精神病评级量表（SAPS-PD）的反应。我们使用类内相关系数（ICC）评估了回答的一致性。在进行精神病评估后，临床医生使用所有可用信息，并裁定谁的回答最可靠：结果：在总分上，两人的一致性较差（ICC = 0.464）。在九个单项中，有六个项目的一致性较差。在 71.4% 的案例中，临床医生判定患者的回答更可靠：结论：虽然许多精神病症状是内在的，无法观察，但在 PDD 的情况下，患者和 CP 的意见都很有价值，但最终裁定更倾向于患者的回答。

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

Movement Disorders Clinical Practice CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

7.50%

发文量

218

期刊介绍： Movement Disorders Clinical Practice- is an online-only journal committed to publishing high quality peer reviewed articles related to clinical aspects of movement disorders which broadly include phenomenology (interesting case/case series/rarities), investigative (for e.g- genetics, imaging), translational (phenotype-genotype or other) and treatment aspects (clinical guidelines, diagnostic and treatment algorithms)