SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PMC

Impact of Cognitive Functioning and Age on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease

Innovation in aging · 2020-01-01

Open accessAbstractOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract Cognitive impairment is prevalent in Parkinson Disease (PD) and increasing age is a PD risk factor. Age and cognition may impact patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) level, reliability, or validity of responses. This study investigated the relative impact of cognitive function and age on PROMs in PD. Cross-sectional data (n=676) included assessments of age, cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment; MoCA) and PROMIS-29 Profile (physical functioning, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social functioning, pain). Analyses examined differences by age and MoCA in: 1)Level—correlations, multivariable regressions controlling for disease severity (UPDRSmotor, PD duration), comorbidity (CIRS-G), demographics; 2)Reliability--Cronbach’s alpha, and 3)Validity--correlations of PROMIS physical function with physician assessments. Sample was age M=68.0(SD=9.1); range=36-93 years, 64% male, 87% white, 37% college educated, PD duration M=8.2(SD=6.1) years, and MoCA M=24.3(SD=4.9; range 2-30). Greater cognitive impairment was consistently associated with greater physical/mental impairment (r=.14-.45; p.8) across cognitive and age groups, except for Fatigue at MoCA.36) across cognition and age groups. Cognitive impairment in PD is associated with lower physical function and mental health levels. Reliability and validity of most PROMs in PD are neither impacted by cognition nor age.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.