Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:07:13.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acceptance of and attitudes towards Alzheimer's disease screening in elderly German adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2013

Sarah R. Braun ,
Katinka Reiner ,
Christina Tegeler ,
Nina Bucholtz ,
Malaz A. Boustani  and
Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen
Sarah R. Braun
Affiliation:
Berlin Aging Study II, Charité Research Group on Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Katinka Reiner
Affiliation:
Berlin Aging Study II, Charité Research Group on Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Christina Tegeler*
Affiliation:
Berlin Aging Study II, Charité Research Group on Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Nina Bucholtz
Affiliation:
Berlin Aging Study II, Charité Research Group on Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Malaz A. Boustani
Affiliation:
Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen
Affiliation:
Berlin Aging Study II, Charité Research Group on Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Christina Tegeler, Berlin Aging Study II, Forschungsgruppe Geriatrie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Reinickendorfer Str. 61, D-13347 Berlin, Germany. Phone: +49-30-450-565-143; Fax: +49-30-450-553-947. Email: Christina.Tegeler@charite.de.
Get access

Abstract

Background:

Considering the discussion on implementing routine dementia screening in Germany, the objective of the current study was to validate the German version of the Perceptions Regarding Investigational Screening for Memory in Primary Care (PRISM-PC) questionnaire and to determine the acceptance of Alzheimer's disease screening in elderly German adults.

Methods:

The German version of the PRISM-PC was administered to a subsample of participants who attended the Berlin Aging Study II (n = 506). The questionnaire was validated by exploratory as well as confirmatory factor analysis.

Results:

Regarding acceptance of Alzheimer's disease screening (Section B) a single factor structure fitted best. In terms of attitudes regarding Alzheimer's disease (Section D), a hierarchical factor structure was modeled with the higher-order factor “Harms” covering the domains “Family Burden,” “Dependence,” “Emotional Suffering,” “Stigma,” and “Medical Care” on the one hand and the domain “Future Planning” on the other hand. Internal consistency of the different scales reached from α = 0.67 to α = 0.94. Overall, 71.2% of the participants indicated that they wanted to be screened for Alzheimer's disease on a regular basis.

Conclusions:

This study suggests that acceptance can reliably be assessed with the section “Acceptance of Alzheimer's disease screenings” of the German PRISM-PC questionnaire. Furthermore, the majority of elderly German adults would like to be screened for Alzheimer's disease regularly, which might be an effective starting point in order to implement routine dementia screenings. As the sample is a convenience sample of (relatively) healthy older adults, generalizability of these results is limited.

Keywords

acceptanceAlzheimer's diseasescreeningattitudes
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 425 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bertram, L. et al. (2013). Cohort profile: the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). International Journal of Epidemiology. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt018.Google Scholar
Boustani, M., Watson, L., Fultz, B., Perkins, A. J. and Druckenbrod, R. (2003). Acceptance of dementia screening in continuous care retirement communities: a mailed survey. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18, 780–786. doi: 10.1002/gps.918.Google Scholar
Boustani, M. et al. (2006). Who refuses the diagnostic assessment for dementia in primary care? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 556–563. doi: 10.1002/gps.1524.Google Scholar
Boustani, M. et al. (2008). Measuring primary care patients’ attitudes about dementia screening. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23, 812–820. doi: 10.1002/gps.1983.Google Scholar
Boustani, M. A. et al. (2011). Caregiver and noncaregiver attitudes toward dementia screening. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 59, 681–686. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03327.x.Google Scholar
Deutsche Alzheimer Gesellschaft (2012). Die Epidemiologie der Demenz. Available at: http://www.deutsche-alzheimer.de/fileadmin/alz/pdf/factsheets/FactSheet01_2012.pdf.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.Google Scholar
Fowler, N. R. et al. (2012). Effect of patient perceptions on dementia screening in primary care. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60, 1037–1043. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03991.x.Google Scholar
Galvin, J. E., Fu, Q., Nguyen, J. T., Glasheen, C. and Scharff, D. P. (2008). Psychosocial determinants of intention to screen for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 4, 353–360. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.09.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hensler, S., Engeser, P. and Kaduszkiewicz, H. (2006). Screening bei der hausärztlichen Versorgung der chronischen Erkrankungen Depression, pAVK und Demenz. Zeitung für Allgemeine Medizin, 82, 199–204. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-933418.Google Scholar
Holsinger, T., Boustani, M., Abbot, D. and Williams, J. W. (2011). Acceptability of dementia screening in primary care patients. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 26, 373–379. doi: 10.1002/gps.2536.Google Scholar
Jorm, A. F. (1997). Methods of screening for dementia: a meta-analysis of studies comparing an informant questionnaire with a brief cognitive test. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders, 11, 158–162.Google Scholar
Justiss, M. D. et al. (2009). Patients’ attitudes of dementia screening across the Atlantic. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 632–637. doi: 10.1002/gps.2173.Google Scholar
Kalbe, E. et al. (2004). DemTect: a new, sensitive cognitive screening test to support the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 136–143. doi: 10.1002/gps.1042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melchinger, H. and Machleidt, W. (2005). Werden Demenzpatienten in Hausarztpraxen lege artis behandelt? Zeitung für Allgemeine Medizin, 81, 191–196. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-836269.Google Scholar
Morris, J. C. et al. (1989). The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD). Part I. Clinical and neuropsychological assessment of Alzheimer's disease. Neurology, 39, 1159–1165.Google Scholar
Mulligan, R., Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Giannakopoulos, P. and Michel, J.-P. (1996). A comparison of alternative methods of screening for dementia in clinical settings. Archives of Neurology, 53, 532–536. doi: 10.1001/archneur.1996.00550060074019.Google Scholar
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306.Google Scholar
Ray, R. (1990). Acquiescence and problems with forced-choice scales. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 397–399. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9924595.Google Scholar
Shulman, K. I., Shedletsky, R. and Silver, I. L. (1986). The challenge of time: clock-drawing and cognitive function in the elderly. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 1, 135–140. doi: 10.1002/gps.930010209.Google Scholar
Tangalos, E. G. et al. (1996). The mini-mental state examination in general medical practice: clinical utility and acceptance. Mayo Clinical Proceedings, 71, 829–837. doi: 10.4065/71.9.829.Google Scholar
Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.Google Scholar