An evaluation of the additional benefit of population screening for dementia beyond a passive case‐finding approach

Objective General practitioners (GPs) fail to identify more than 50% of dementia cases using the existing passive case‐finding approach. Using data from the “Ageing in General Practice” study, we sought to establish the additional benefit of screening all patients over the age of 75 for dementia bey...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of geriatric psychiatry 2017-03, Vol.32 (3), p.316-323
Hauptverfasser: Mate, Karen E., Magin, Parker J., Brodaty, Henry, Stocks, Nigel P., Gunn, Jane, Disler, Peter B., Marley, John E., Pond, C. Dimity
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 323
container_issue 3
container_start_page 316
container_title International journal of geriatric psychiatry
container_volume 32
creator Mate, Karen E.
Magin, Parker J.
Brodaty, Henry
Stocks, Nigel P.
Gunn, Jane
Disler, Peter B.
Marley, John E.
Pond, C. Dimity
description Objective General practitioners (GPs) fail to identify more than 50% of dementia cases using the existing passive case‐finding approach. Using data from the “Ageing in General Practice” study, we sought to establish the additional benefit of screening all patients over the age of 75 for dementia beyond those patients already identified by passive case‐finding. Method Patients were classified as “case‐finding” (n = 425) or “screening” (n = 1006) based on their answers to four subjective memory related questions or their GP's clinical judgement of their dementia status. Cognitive status of each patient was formally assessed by a research nurse using the Cambridge Cognition Examination (CAMCOG‐R). Patients then attended their usual GP for administration of the GP assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) dementia screening instrument, and follow‐up care and/or referral as necessary in light of the outcome. Results The prevalence of dementia was significantly higher in the case‐finding group (13.6%) compared to the screening group (4.6%; p < 0.01). The GPCOG had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 61% in the case‐finding group and 39% in the screening group; negative predictive value was >95% in both groups. GPs and their patients both found the GPCOG to be an acceptable cognitive assessment tool. The dementia cases missed via case‐finding were younger (p = 0.024) and less cognitively impaired (p = 0.020) than those detected. Conclusion There is a very limited benefit of screening for dementia, as most people with dementia could be detected using a case‐finding approach, and considerable potential for social and economic harm because of the low PPV associated with screening.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/gps.4466
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1872831845</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1872831845</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4166-ebf75547aa7f5701c080f728d3ff2c419c679094245756537d2386446124445e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0ctKxDAUBuAgio4X8Akk4MZNNUlz61LEGwgK6rpk2hONdJLatMrsfASf0ScxdbyAILgK4Xz8IedHaJuSfUoIO7hr4z7nUi6hCSVFkVEq5TKaEK1FJllO1tB6jA-EpBnVq2iNyULrQskJGg49hifTDKZ3weNgcX8P2NS1G--mwVPwYF0_TtrQDs3CxaoD8M7fYRs6XMMMfO9MwvPga2xwa2J0T4ArE-Ht5dU6X4_YtG0XTHW_iVasaSJsfZ4b6Pbk-OboLLu4PD0_OrzIKp5-kMHUKiG4MkZZoQitiCZWMV3n1rJEikqqghSccaGEFLmqWa5lWgRlnHMB-QbaW-SmZx8HiH05c7GCpjEewhBLqlNaTjUX_6BMSklkThPd_UUfwtClZY1KCqGZ4uQnsOpCjB3Ysu3czHTzkpJybK1MrZVja4nufAYO0xnU3_CrpgSyBXh2Dcz_DCpPr64_At8BId2gWQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1865582740</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An evaluation of the additional benefit of population screening for dementia beyond a passive case‐finding approach</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Mate, Karen E. ; Magin, Parker J. ; Brodaty, Henry ; Stocks, Nigel P. ; Gunn, Jane ; Disler, Peter B. ; Marley, John E. ; Pond, C. Dimity</creator><creatorcontrib>Mate, Karen E. ; Magin, Parker J. ; Brodaty, Henry ; Stocks, Nigel P. ; Gunn, Jane ; Disler, Peter B. ; Marley, John E. ; Pond, C. Dimity</creatorcontrib><description>Objective General practitioners (GPs) fail to identify more than 50% of dementia cases using the existing passive case‐finding approach. Using data from the “Ageing in General Practice” study, we sought to establish the additional benefit of screening all patients over the age of 75 for dementia beyond those patients already identified by passive case‐finding. Method Patients were classified as “case‐finding” (n = 425) or “screening” (n = 1006) based on their answers to four subjective memory related questions or their GP's clinical judgement of their dementia status. Cognitive status of each patient was formally assessed by a research nurse using the Cambridge Cognition Examination (CAMCOG‐R). Patients then attended their usual GP for administration of the GP assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) dementia screening instrument, and follow‐up care and/or referral as necessary in light of the outcome. Results The prevalence of dementia was significantly higher in the case‐finding group (13.6%) compared to the screening group (4.6%; p &lt; 0.01). The GPCOG had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 61% in the case‐finding group and 39% in the screening group; negative predictive value was &gt;95% in both groups. GPs and their patients both found the GPCOG to be an acceptable cognitive assessment tool. The dementia cases missed via case‐finding were younger (p = 0.024) and less cognitively impaired (p = 0.020) than those detected. Conclusion There is a very limited benefit of screening for dementia, as most people with dementia could be detected using a case‐finding approach, and considerable potential for social and economic harm because of the low PPV associated with screening.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0885-6230</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-1166</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/gps.4466</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26988976</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IJGPES</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; case‐finding ; Cognition ; Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Dementia ; Dementia - diagnosis ; Dementia - psychology ; Family Practice ; Female ; General Practice ; Geriatric psychiatry ; Geriatric psychology ; Humans ; Male ; Mass Screening ; Medical screening ; Mental Status and Dementia Tests ; Middle Aged ; Prevalence ; Primary care ; screening</subject><ispartof>International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2017-03, Vol.32 (3), p.316-323</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4166-ebf75547aa7f5701c080f728d3ff2c419c679094245756537d2386446124445e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4166-ebf75547aa7f5701c080f728d3ff2c419c679094245756537d2386446124445e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fgps.4466$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fgps.4466$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26988976$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mate, Karen E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magin, Parker J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodaty, Henry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stocks, Nigel P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gunn, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Disler, Peter B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marley, John E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pond, C. Dimity</creatorcontrib><title>An evaluation of the additional benefit of population screening for dementia beyond a passive case‐finding approach</title><title>International journal of geriatric psychiatry</title><addtitle>Int J Geriatr Psychiatry</addtitle><description>Objective General practitioners (GPs) fail to identify more than 50% of dementia cases using the existing passive case‐finding approach. Using data from the “Ageing in General Practice” study, we sought to establish the additional benefit of screening all patients over the age of 75 for dementia beyond those patients already identified by passive case‐finding. Method Patients were classified as “case‐finding” (n = 425) or “screening” (n = 1006) based on their answers to four subjective memory related questions or their GP's clinical judgement of their dementia status. Cognitive status of each patient was formally assessed by a research nurse using the Cambridge Cognition Examination (CAMCOG‐R). Patients then attended their usual GP for administration of the GP assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) dementia screening instrument, and follow‐up care and/or referral as necessary in light of the outcome. Results The prevalence of dementia was significantly higher in the case‐finding group (13.6%) compared to the screening group (4.6%; p &lt; 0.01). The GPCOG had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 61% in the case‐finding group and 39% in the screening group; negative predictive value was &gt;95% in both groups. GPs and their patients both found the GPCOG to be an acceptable cognitive assessment tool. The dementia cases missed via case‐finding were younger (p = 0.024) and less cognitively impaired (p = 0.020) than those detected. Conclusion There is a very limited benefit of screening for dementia, as most people with dementia could be detected using a case‐finding approach, and considerable potential for social and economic harm because of the low PPV associated with screening.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>case‐finding</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Dementia</subject><subject>Dementia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Dementia - psychology</subject><subject>Family Practice</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General Practice</subject><subject>Geriatric psychiatry</subject><subject>Geriatric psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Mental Status and Dementia Tests</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>screening</subject><issn>0885-6230</issn><issn>1099-1166</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0ctKxDAUBuAgio4X8Akk4MZNNUlz61LEGwgK6rpk2hONdJLatMrsfASf0ScxdbyAILgK4Xz8IedHaJuSfUoIO7hr4z7nUi6hCSVFkVEq5TKaEK1FJllO1tB6jA-EpBnVq2iNyULrQskJGg49hifTDKZ3weNgcX8P2NS1G--mwVPwYF0_TtrQDs3CxaoD8M7fYRs6XMMMfO9MwvPga2xwa2J0T4ArE-Ht5dU6X4_YtG0XTHW_iVasaSJsfZ4b6Pbk-OboLLu4PD0_OrzIKp5-kMHUKiG4MkZZoQitiCZWMV3n1rJEikqqghSccaGEFLmqWa5lWgRlnHMB-QbaW-SmZx8HiH05c7GCpjEewhBLqlNaTjUX_6BMSklkThPd_UUfwtClZY1KCqGZ4uQnsOpCjB3Ysu3czHTzkpJybK1MrZVja4nufAYO0xnU3_CrpgSyBXh2Dcz_DCpPr64_At8BId2gWQ</recordid><startdate>201703</startdate><enddate>201703</enddate><creator>Mate, Karen E.</creator><creator>Magin, Parker J.</creator><creator>Brodaty, Henry</creator><creator>Stocks, Nigel P.</creator><creator>Gunn, Jane</creator><creator>Disler, Peter B.</creator><creator>Marley, John E.</creator><creator>Pond, C. Dimity</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201703</creationdate><title>An evaluation of the additional benefit of population screening for dementia beyond a passive case‐finding approach</title><author>Mate, Karen E. ; Magin, Parker J. ; Brodaty, Henry ; Stocks, Nigel P. ; Gunn, Jane ; Disler, Peter B. ; Marley, John E. ; Pond, C. Dimity</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4166-ebf75547aa7f5701c080f728d3ff2c419c679094245756537d2386446124445e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>case‐finding</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Dementia</topic><topic>Dementia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Dementia - psychology</topic><topic>Family Practice</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General Practice</topic><topic>Geriatric psychiatry</topic><topic>Geriatric psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Mental Status and Dementia Tests</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>screening</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mate, Karen E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Magin, Parker J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodaty, Henry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stocks, Nigel P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gunn, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Disler, Peter B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marley, John E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pond, C. Dimity</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of geriatric psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mate, Karen E.</au><au>Magin, Parker J.</au><au>Brodaty, Henry</au><au>Stocks, Nigel P.</au><au>Gunn, Jane</au><au>Disler, Peter B.</au><au>Marley, John E.</au><au>Pond, C. Dimity</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An evaluation of the additional benefit of population screening for dementia beyond a passive case‐finding approach</atitle><jtitle>International journal of geriatric psychiatry</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Geriatr Psychiatry</addtitle><date>2017-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>316</spage><epage>323</epage><pages>316-323</pages><issn>0885-6230</issn><eissn>1099-1166</eissn><coden>IJGPES</coden><abstract>Objective General practitioners (GPs) fail to identify more than 50% of dementia cases using the existing passive case‐finding approach. Using data from the “Ageing in General Practice” study, we sought to establish the additional benefit of screening all patients over the age of 75 for dementia beyond those patients already identified by passive case‐finding. Method Patients were classified as “case‐finding” (n = 425) or “screening” (n = 1006) based on their answers to four subjective memory related questions or their GP's clinical judgement of their dementia status. Cognitive status of each patient was formally assessed by a research nurse using the Cambridge Cognition Examination (CAMCOG‐R). Patients then attended their usual GP for administration of the GP assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) dementia screening instrument, and follow‐up care and/or referral as necessary in light of the outcome. Results The prevalence of dementia was significantly higher in the case‐finding group (13.6%) compared to the screening group (4.6%; p &lt; 0.01). The GPCOG had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 61% in the case‐finding group and 39% in the screening group; negative predictive value was &gt;95% in both groups. GPs and their patients both found the GPCOG to be an acceptable cognitive assessment tool. The dementia cases missed via case‐finding were younger (p = 0.024) and less cognitively impaired (p = 0.020) than those detected. Conclusion There is a very limited benefit of screening for dementia, as most people with dementia could be detected using a case‐finding approach, and considerable potential for social and economic harm because of the low PPV associated with screening.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>26988976</pmid><doi>10.1002/gps.4466</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0885-6230
ispartof International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2017-03, Vol.32 (3), p.316-323
issn 0885-6230
1099-1166
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1872831845
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Aged
case‐finding
Cognition
Cognition & reasoning
Dementia
Dementia - diagnosis
Dementia - psychology
Family Practice
Female
General Practice
Geriatric psychiatry
Geriatric psychology
Humans
Male
Mass Screening
Medical screening
Mental Status and Dementia Tests
Middle Aged
Prevalence
Primary care
screening
title An evaluation of the additional benefit of population screening for dementia beyond a passive case‐finding approach
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T01%3A11%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20evaluation%20of%20the%20additional%20benefit%20of%20population%20screening%20for%20dementia%20beyond%20a%20passive%20case%E2%80%90finding%20approach&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20geriatric%20psychiatry&rft.au=Mate,%20Karen%20E.&rft.date=2017-03&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=316&rft.epage=323&rft.pages=316-323&rft.issn=0885-6230&rft.eissn=1099-1166&rft.coden=IJGPES&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/gps.4466&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1872831845%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1865582740&rft_id=info:pmid/26988976&rfr_iscdi=true